THE COURT: Both sides can ask the witnesses if they have been keeping up with this, and I’ll have to decide what I’m going to do about it.

Okay. Mr. Prince.

(Mr. Prince took the witness stand.)

THE COURT: Good morning.

THE WITNESS: Good morning.

THE COURT: Okay. Day 31. This is the 11th, right?

MR. WEINBERG: Of the trial?

THE COURT: 7/11.

MR. WEINBERG: 7/11.

THE COURT: All right. You may continue, Counselor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF JESSE PRINCE (RESUMED)

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, in the vein that we just talked, the Judge

Page 1021

and I, have — since you have been back on the stand this week, have you met with any of the witnesses or prospective witnesses in this case?

THE COURT: Do you know who the prospective — does he know who they are?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I think — well, the next witness is Frank Oliver, and then there’s Mr. Dandar. There’s some secret person that Mr. Dandar hasn’t told us about — maybe he’s told you — and the prior witnesses were Peter Alexander, what, Teresa Summers, Vaughn Young, Stacy Young, Bob Minton, other people — Brian Haney. Have you met with any of those people?

A Not anything for the purposes of — that’s been in relationship to this trial. I mean, I was here the day that Mr. Haney was here, and we had lunch when he was testifying. I think I was waiting outside the courtroom or something.

THE COURT: The real question is, Have you discussed with them their testimony or yours?

THE WITNESS: Oh, no.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Have you discussed, since you’ve been back on the stand, your testimony with Mr. Dandar?

A No.

Page 1022

Q Or Mr. Lirot? I’m sorry. I had trouble with his name?

A No, Mr. Weinberg, I have not.

Q Or Ms. Greenway?

A No, Mr. Weinberg, I have not.

Q Okay.

A I followed the court instruction in that regard.

Q And have you had an opportunity to visit the — the —

THE COURT: Unless Ms. Greenway is a witness, she could technically — technically I suppose have chatted with her. If people under the rule —

First of all, he’s testified he ought not to be discussing his testimony; the Court instructed him so.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Let me ask you this. I mean, have you eaten — I mean, have you visited with, you know, Ms. Greenway or Mr. Oliver or anybody like that?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Because they’re friends?

A Correct.

Q When’s the last time you saw Mr. Oliver?

A Last night.

Page 1023

Q What were you doing with him last night?

A We had dinner. I invited him to a barbecue.

Q Did you know that he was going to be testifying —

A Yes.

Q — after you?

A Yes.

Q And where was the barbecue?

A My house.

Q And who else was there?

11 A Mr. Lirot, Mrs. Greenway, my fiance.

THE COURT: It — really and truly, this is not your business. What is your business is whether —

MR. WEINBERG: I was going to ask one last question.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And you all didn’t talk about the case?

THE COURT: That isn’t the question either.

It’s whether he discussed anything about his testimony. I mean, they can talk about the trial.

They can say — we’re all crazy to think that when most people get together, they don’t say, “What do you think? Is the case going to be ready for trial?” But the question is what’s going on here.

Page 1024

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you talk at all about your testimony or Mr. Oliver’s testimony?

A No. I followed the Court’s instruction in that regard.

Q Now, I touched on this a couple of days ago, but I want to go back for just a minute and see if we can focus more on the dates. After you left the Church of Scientology at the end of October, beginning of November of 1992, there came a time when, in Minneapolis, you became employed by a company called G & B. Is that right?

A Correct.

Q And that was a company — is a company that is run by a woman named Dana Hanson. Is that right?

A Correct.

Q And she is a public member of Scientology?

A To my knowledge at the time, yes.

Q All right. And you’d started working for her in March of 1994, thereabouts, correct?

A I’d say that’s a fair estimation of when I started working for her.

Q And at first your then-wife had been referred to her to work, right? Is that how it started?

A I believe, yes. I believe you’re correct in that.

Page 1025

Q And the reference came from a staff member in the Minneapolis Org?

A I’m not sure where the reference came from.

Q In any event, you began to work for this company, right?

A Correct.

Q And you stayed at the company until the fall of 1995, when you were fired, right?

A Incorrect. I was never fired from that company.

Q You left the company in the fall of 1995?

A Correct.

Q Now, during this period of time, Ms. Hanson was kind enough, for part of the time, to let you stay in her house. Right?

MR. DANDAR: Objection to relevancy.

THE COURT: Yes. Sustained.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, during the time that you were employed by Ms. Hanson — oh, by the way, this company was run pursuant to Hubbard technology, correct?

A Not per se, but she wanted it to. She wanted me to run it according to Hubbard technology.

Q And —

A It hadn’t been like that before.

Q And briefly, that means what?

Page 1026

A Getting people to disclose intimate details about themselves because this was, you know, a Scientology belief that, you know, if you tell intimate details about yourself or things that you wouldn’t necessarily want made public, then it’ll somehow make you feel better and increase your production.

Q And —

A That’s one thing. Another part was to sit people down and have them study the writings of Mrs. Hanson concerning how the company should operate and make sure that they understood all the words that she had written.

And also, she wanted me to do like a class, a classroom for doing the TRs, the training routines that I mentioned earlier in my testimony that’s part of Scientology training —

Q Okay.

A — that kind of thing.

Q And the idea was the company would run more efficiently, correct?

A Correct.

Q Okay. Now, during the course of your year and a half or so with the company, there came a time when you admitted to Ms. Hanson that you had engaged in extensive unethical behavior, in violation of moral codes that were adhered to by Scientologists pursuant to this Hubbard

Page 1027

technology, correct?

MR. DANDAR: Objection. This is nothing but to try to embarrass and denigrate Mr. Prince —

THE COURT: What’s the point of this?

MR. WEINBERG: The point is that Mr. Prince said on direct that he couldn’t work because of the Church of Scientology, that he lost his job as a result of the Church of Scientology. That’s what he said.

THE COURT: That has nothing to do with this hearing. The objection is sustained.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q What was the reason that you left in October of ’95?

MR. DANDAR: Same objection.

THE COURT: I’ll allow that.

A I left because I didn’t want to practice — I didn’t want to do that — do the things, the Scientology things, in the company. I just wanted to be normal, just do what a company does, instead of adding a Scientology slant to it.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. So the Church, no staff member, had anything to do with you being terminated from your job.

You just —

Page 1028

A I think I mentioned I was not terminated from my job, Mr. Weinberg.

Q When you terminated from your job, no staff member had anything to do with it.

A I couldn’t hear you. There was noise going on.

Q I said no staff member in any Church of Scientology had anything to do with you leaving your job. Is that right?

A No. That’s categorically false. Mr. Sutter from the Religious Technology Center, after I would not do the Scientological things in that company, together with Ms. Hanson —

THE COURT: This is just not relevant.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. Well, I mean, a lot of that answer —

THE COURT: It is not relevant to this proceeding, so you’re not going to go into why he left the job. It just doesn’t matter.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you said yesterday that you had — you accused the Church yesterday of having made you sign undated resignations, resignation letters, which were then dated on the date that you were busted from the RTC.

Correct?

Page 1029

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: Now, let me show you —

Do we have the resignation letters? Are they in evidence?

MR. DANDAR: While they’re looking for that, Judge, did you say this is Day 31?

THE COURT: If what Mr. Weinberg said yesterday, that that was Day 30, then this would be Day 31. I couldn’t keep up with it.

MR. WEINBERG: May I approach the clerk?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. WEINBERG: This is 242 (handing), your Honor.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I’ve showed you what we’ve marked as 242 —

A Yes.

Q — Defendant’s 242. Can you look at those and tell me if those are copies of the three resignation letters which you signed on March 3rd, 1987?

A Yes, they are.

Q Now, you are familiar, are you not, with a dot matrix printer? Do you know what that is? Do you remember the printers back 13 or 14 years ago?

A Yes, I believe I know what you’re talking about.

Q Right. And this letter — you can tell that

Page 1030

these letters were typed on dot matrix printers. They were printed out on dot matrix printers. You can even see on the side, the column, some of the holes? Do you see that?

They line up exactly on the three letters, right?

A Okay.

Q And it’s impossible to have typed up a letter on a dot matrix printer years before and then run it back through and put a date on it years later. That’s impossible, isn’t it?

MR. DANDAR: Objection. Outside of his expertise.

THE COURT: Do you know the answer to that?

THE WITNESS: No. But I know the answer to why these documents have this date on here.

THE COURT: Okay. If he can’t answer that question, he can’t answer it.

MR. WEINBERG: I move these into evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: Oh, can I have this?

MR. WEINBERG: Sure. She has it.

THE COURT: What is the number, please?

MR. WEINBERG: It’s 242.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, in your direct testimony, you made a big

Page 1031

point about the CSWs, the completed staff work, you know, like the purchase orders. Do you know what I’m talking about?

A Yes, I do.

Q And —

A I didn’t make a big deal out of it. I think I explained it.

Q Well, the point was, you said that in order to — for the medical liaison office to buy, you know, chloral hydrate, you would have to have a CSW or purchase order issued. Correct?

A Right.

Q And then you drew some conclusion. Because there wasn’t any purchase order, your conclusion was that that hadn’t happened? Was that what your conclusion was?

A I do not believe that that was my conclusion.

Q In any event, you’re familiar, are you not, with cash floats? Do you know what that is?

A Sure.

Q And are you familiar with the policy that provides for a float for the MLO? Are you familiar with that?

A I am not.

Q Explain to the Court what a float is.

A Well, I mean, if you have a policy there, I mean,

Page 1032

I —

THE COURT: He just wants you to tell me what a float is, if you know.

THE WITNESS: I don’t.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I thought you just said you did.

A Well, not in the — I don’t think — maybe I misspoke, because I don’t understand the context you’re talking about float here.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. I’ll have it marked.

Could you mark this as 243, I believe.

This would be 243, your Honor (handing).

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, I’ve handed you a — Defendant’s 243, which is Flag Order 3082R, November 15th, 1971, with regard to medical finance. And do you see that this policy reinstates in every Sea Organization the use of a $1,000 medical float? Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And do you understand what that means?

A Yes, I do. But this does not negate someone else that has a medical emergency, as stated in that CSW exhibit that we put in for medical emergencies, of what it has to

Page 1033

go through.

Q Well, do you understand that what this is saying is that for every Sea Organization, including — which would include Flag Services, correct, Fort Harrison?

A Correct.

Q Right. That for every organization, the MLO, the medical liaison office, has a $1,000 float from which they don’t have to issue these CSWs and purchase orders and can go get what they need? Do you understand that?

A Well, hang on a second, because I’m looking at this second page here, and it says since the medical officer has the authority in the Org more than anyone else under need of these purchases, he does not need division reapproval. He does not have to have a CSW for his money. Division 3 just disburses the money each time. A simple red purchase order stating $1,000 for a medical float is sufficient to get the money.

Now, what this is specifically referring to is a medical officer having this float, but there’s another policy letter in Scientology that’s in Division 3 that has to do with accounting. Even though this medical officer would have this float, he would still have to account in detail where the last $1,000 went as well.

Q Well, look at under “essential data.” Do you see where it says this policy — this medical float policy is

Page 1034

established to prevent the medical officer from having to spend much time or worry on finance?

A Yes.

Q Do you understand that the whole concept of every time I had to go get chloral hydrate for a parishioner that needed it, that I would have to fill out some CSW, that that might not be a very efficient way to help people and that that’s what this float policy is all about?

A Well, you know, I understand what you’re saying in theory and, you know, I don’t — I really don’t think it’s a common practice.

THE COURT: Are you saying that when you go back and get more — $1,000 float money that they’re going to want to see what you spent the money for?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: And how are you going to account for that? With receipts or what?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, have you ever been a medical liaison officer?

A No, I have not.

THE COURT: I mean, this sounds to me like a petty cash fund of sorts.

MR. WEINBERG: That’s exactly —

Page 1035

THE COURT: When you have a petty cash fund, you still — if it’s a $1,000 petty cash fund, you’re going to have to show somebody what it is you spent the money on.

MR. DANDAR: I also object. The last sentence on this document talks about it’s only for the crew. They hadn’t mentioned anything about public members.

THE COURT: Well, you can bring that up on cross-examination.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: I was just raising this because of the testimony on direct, that you needed a CSW. This policy says you don’t need a CSW.

THE COURT: I frankly didn’t even remember it, so . . .

MR. WEINBERG: You do now, right?

THE COURT: I do now.

MR. WEINBERG: And then I’ll just show you —

Then I’ll mark, just so it’s in the record the — as the next exhibit.

THE CLERK: 244.

MR. WEINBERG: 244, take one second (handing to Court and witness).

Page 1036

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The Modern Management Technology Defined: Hubbard Dictionary of Administration and Management. You know about that dictionary, right, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, I do.

Q If you go to “medical float,” do you see on page 329, it says: “With this float, the medical officer buys doctor-dentist-medical-health specialist visits and treatment, laboratory analysis, X rays, medical equipment essential for a person’s health, medicines, prescriptions, and transportation.” Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q So something like a prescription for chloral hydrate would be covered by the medical float, would it not?

A This references this same Flag order. I gave testimony that a Flag order has to do with Sea Org personnel. It has to do with people that are on staff in the Sea Org.

Q So — so the MLO officer has to get a purchase order to go get chloral hydrate for a parishioner who is staying at the Fort Harrison, but if he or she doesn’t — if a Sea Org member is at the Fort Harrison? Is that your testimony?

A My testimony is the evidence that you’ve given me

Page 1037

here states specifically that this is how it is done for staff members. The public, being a paying public, certainly have different policies.

THE COURT: To be candid with you, I think it’s been conceded that — by somebody that Lisa McPherson should not have been to the hotel. Hasn’t that been conceded?

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I don’t think conceded.

I think people were trying —

THE COURT: To suggest that it really ought not to have been taken care of —

MR. WEINBERG: It would have been a smarter thing to be in a different environment.

THE COURT: Right. So you have to assume that the medical that they’re talking about in this — I’ll ask Mr. Prince this.

You have to assume that normally it’s going to be Sea Org members who are going to be taken care of because they’re the ones that would be living in a Scientology facility.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: But at some place like Flag, where they have maybe — I guess you have to be a Sea Org member to come there and take the technology courses that they offered.

Page 1038

THE WITNESS: No, you don’t have to be —

THE COURT: Right. So if somebody is there — there, and they have to get a — I mean, I don’t know what — they get sick and somebody is called in and they need some minor medicine, I would assume that they would allow this policy to govern, rather than have to go through all the harangue of whatever it was you were talking about.

But I think that whatever it is, you’re going to still, nonetheless, account for whatever it is you bought out of your petty cash fund or your float fund or whatever you want to call it.

THE WITNESS: Sure. And the other thing, your Honor, is that in no way will a Scientology organization pay the medical expenses of a public paying staff member, a public person coming in, using services in Scientology.

You know, the money works the other way. The public gives the money to Scientology. Scientology doesn’t then —

THE COURT: Well, we know they were using Ms. McPherson’s money to pay for certain things because she eventually ran out.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: So presumably everything was subject. I mean, if she was really in a bad

Page 1039

situation, a psychotic, where she couldn’t — you know, they apparently were free to use her funds, I guess.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So you can’t really tell us, under the circumstances that we’re dealing with here, whether chloral hydrate was necessarily purchased out of the float money or whether it was purchased with this CSW.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Would that be fair?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

MR. WEINBERG: Just a few more questions, one more area.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Back to the gun situation just for a moment.

Yesterday when we talked about this or the day before — I’ve sort of lost count now — you sort of suggested that it was more of a — of a joke, that you really weren’t that serious.

THE COURT: What was a joke?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q That you weren’t really threatening anybody.

THE COURT: What are you talking about?

MR. WEINBERG: Oh, I’m sorry, the gun, when

Page 1040

he says he pulled the guns on David Miscavige.

A I didn’t say anything about a joke. I said I did it out of self-protection.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. So —

A That’s the testimony that I gave from this stand.

Q Well, I thought I heard you say that you didn’t really threaten anybody.

A I can’t help what you thought you heard, but I can tell you right now that when — after — what I testified to in this courtroom is that after those people grabbed me and I got away from them, I went to my room and got these weapons to protect myself.

It wasn’t a joke to me at that point.

Q And when you first told — do you remember when you first told this story about guns? That was in the FACTNet deposition, which was the first deposition I think — was that the first deposition you gave after you became a witness against Scientology?

MR. DANDAR: Objection to form.

THE COURT: No, that’s all right.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A I’m not sure.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Page 1041

Q All right. Do you remember in that deposition that you said something to the effect that bodies were going to start dropping?

A If you have it, you know, I’d like to see it.

Q Okay.

A If you just have it, you show it to me, and I’ll tell you what I said.

Q We’ll play a short clip, you’ll have it, and then I’ll have a couple of questions.

A Okay.

HE COURT: A short clip from what? A deposition?

MR. WEINBERG: Of his deposition. It’s his deposition.

THE COURT: In this case?

MR. WEINBERG: No. It’s his deposition in the FACTNet case. It will take just a minute, I think.

MR. DANDAR: Apparently need it brighter.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m amazed she can pull this stuff up.

THE WITNESS: Right in this room, I’m having a difficult time. I think I’d better go around.

THE COURT: Sure. Wait a minute.

MR. WEINBERG: Wait just one second.

Page 1042

(The witness left the stand,)

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay.

(The tape was played as follows.)

FROM THE DEPOSITION OF JESSE PRINCE DATED AUGUST 20, 1998

A And I went to my room, where I had a loaded .45 and a loaded Mini 14, and I came back to David Miscavige’s office with those guns. And I said, “Which one of you wants to fuck with me now?”

BY MR. ROSEN:

Q And what happened? I’m sitting here with bated breath thinking — to hear the end of the story.

A Well, do you want me to tell it or do you want —

Q No, I’m (unintelligible) the answer to that question that you raised.

A Well, I’m confused now. What question did I raise?

Q You posed a question to Mr. Miscavige that “which one of you wants to F with me now?”

A Right. So at this point Vicki comes running out:

“Jesse, no, no, no, it’s all been sanctioned by Annie Broker. She knows about everything. And Pat Broker. She knows about everything. Don’t do this.”

Then here comes David Miscavige. He completely

Page 1043

changes his tune now: “Oh, Jesse,” you know, “we’ve been friends and we’ve gone through so much. Let’s not go here.

And I stood there looking at them with my guns in my hand, wondering. You know, like you can pat a snake on the head, but as soon as you pull your hand back, he going to bite. And I was wondering if that was going to happen to me as I’m sitting here with these guns.

And, you know, David is like pleading. Then it turns into a situation like, “Well,” you know, “we’ve got lots of guns too.”

And I said, “What the hell do you all want to do, have a shootout? Because I’ve got guns here, and bodies are going to start dropping.”

(End of tape. The witness returned to the stand)

MR. DANDAR: I object. It’s apples and oranges. It doesn’t even go to try to impeach the witness.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, first —

THE COURT: I don’t know what the purpose was, so we’ll hear now.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Yesterday or the day before, July 9th, when I

Page 1044

asked you the question about whether you threatened to kill Mr. Miscavige, you said, quote, “I didn’t threaten to kill Mr. Miscavige.”

Now, when you told that story to Mr. Rosen at that August 1998 deposition, you said in front of Mr. Miscavige, you know, “Bodies are going to start dropping,” or something like that. Right? I mean, you said that —

A The video speaks for itself, and I don’t contest it. I mean, that’s — what I said is what happened, is what I meant. So you can take it any way you want.

Q Now, when you said a Mini 14 —

THE COURT: A what?

MR. WEINBERG: A Mini 14.

THE COURT: What do we care about this, about these guns?

MR. WEINBERG: About —

THE COURT: About something that went on between him and — way back when.

MR. WEINBERG: No, it’s just the opposite, your Honor. We don’t believe this incident ever happened and that he just made this up for reasons that one can only imagine when he told this story for the first time in August of 1998. But, your Honor, I mean —

Page 1045

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Let me ask you. A Mini 14 is an assault rifle, right?

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: Mr. Bailiff, could I possibly have our model there?

This is just a replica.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s plastic. It’s plastic.

It’s not real.

MR. DANDAR: I just wish — I just wish the St. Pete Times was here with their camera to see this.

I think this is an unbelievable game —

THE COURT: Is that an objection?

MR. DANDAR: — of showmanship. It’s irrelevant.

THE COURT: What is the point?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q (Showing) Is that what you’re talking about?

Something like that?

A Similar to, but not quite.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. I’m going to give you this back.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And you still contend that that’s what you pulled

Page 1046

on Mr. Miscavige and the other twelve people that were there. Right?

A Mr. Weinberg, I stand behind the testimony that I’ve given about that incident in the past and anything I’ve said —

Q All right.

A — in this hearing.

Q And then they just let you go right back to your room and put the guns in your room?

A Correct.

Q And they didn’t take them away from you?

A Correct.

Q And they just stayed there for the next, what, five years?

A No. I eventually sold the Mini 14.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. I don’t have any further questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Redirect?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, we ought to pick it up right where Mr. Weinberg just left off.

(Mr. Weinberg spoke to Mr. Dandar off the record.)

Page 1047

MR. DANDAR: Do you want me to wait?

MR. WEINBERG: That’s fine. I just don’t want to interrupt you.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q When you had these two real guns loaded as you described when you were being, quote, busted, unquote, Mr. Miscavige came right up to you while you held the two guns in your hands, correct?

A Correct.

Q And did you or he laugh?

A Laugh?

Q Laugh.

A Like laugh?

Q Yes, like laugh.

A No.

Q Did Mr. Miscavige say — indicate to you any fear whatsoever?

A No.

Q And then you turned around and walked back to your room?

A Correct. I believe he may have even followed me there. And we then proceeded to that area of the ship where we saw the pictures with the swimming pool, with the mast, and we had a conversation there.

Q Did you sit around the pool?

Page 1048

A Well, actually, there’s an area inside that’s air-conditioned, has a bar in there, and we actually sat in there and drank cold water and ate fruit.

Q And when Mr. Weinberg — or, you said that Vicki Aznaran, the president of the RTC, told you that this had all been sanctioned by Annie and Pat Broker, did she accompany you to the RPF after that?

A Yes, and other people for sure.

Q Because she took the Annie and Pat Broker side, rather than the David Miscavige power struggle side?

A Correct.

Q You’re going to the RPF, Mr. Prince. Did it have anything to do with any mistakes you made in applying the tech of Scientology?

A Absolutely not.

THE COURT: What does this all have to do with anything I’m hearing?

MR. DANDAR: Just trying to straighten out some misconceptions. My computer just went onto standby. That’s not what I wanted to happen. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, when you left Scientology, did you just walk out the door in ’92?

A No.

Page 1049

Q How did you leave?

A I had to basically sign a release saying that Scientology has never done anything wrong with me and has no liability for anything that I may be suffering then or could realize in the future and on and on and on —

THE COURT: Wasn’t that release introduced yesterday?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So it said whatever it said.

MR. DANDAR: Well, I wanted to ask him a question about it, and you can see my paralegal is not here, so I’m flying.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q That release says that you were releasing the Church of Scientology from any and all damages for valuable consideration. There’s two or three paragraphs that say that.

A M’hum (affirmative).

Q What valuable consideration did you receive from the Church of Scientology to sign that release?

MR. WEINBERG: It was asked and answered.

He explained —

THE WITNESS: No, I never answered this.

THE COURT: Just a second.

Page 1050

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, asked and answered

by Mr. Dandar. I didn’t go back into it. It’s beyond the scope. But he already — Mr. Prince already explained how much money he got in return for signing the release on direct.

THE COURT: He did?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes. He said —

THE WITNESS: No, I didn’t.

MR. DANDAR: Shhh.

MR. WEINBERG: I thought he said a thousand plus dollars.

THE COURT: I don’t remember it, so I’m going to allow him to ask it. I don’t remember it.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. I might have brain drain.

MR. DANDAR: I think you’re talking about some meeting in December of ’94.

MR. WEINBERG: No, I don’t think so.

THE COURT: That was more than a thousand.

THE WITNESS: Twenty-seven.

MR. WEINBERG: I really think he did, but it doesn’t matter.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, did you receive anything of consideration

Page 1051

to sign those releases?

A I think I received $2,000.

Q Okay. From whom?

A Good question. Marty just handed me the money.

Q Well, do you have any idea why it’s not mentioned in the release?

A I do not.

THE COURT: Most releases don’t tell you what. Most releases say “ten dollars and other valuable consideration,” don’t they?

MR. DANDAR: Not the ones that I’ve seen, Judge.

THE COURT: Most of the ones I’ve seen do, because I always wondered why they pick ten dollars.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, how is it that Ms. Dana Hanson wanted to — picked you to come into her public business and set up her business to run the Hubbard tech?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to competency.

I mean, how is it that this woman —

THE COURT: I’ll sustain that. Quite frankly, I suspect that he’s already testified he was one of the premier experts on the tech. So I mean, I think I can assume that.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. If you can assume that,

Page 1052

I’ll go on.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, you were —

THE COURT: I can’t assume that, but, I mean, that is the testimony that he has put forth.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

THE COURT: So . . .

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is there any other reason as far as you know — without telling us what other people said — is there any other reason as far as you know as to why Dana Hanson hired you, other than your expertise on the tech?

Q Mr. Prince, you wanted to tell Mr. Weinberg a little while ago why the date of March 3, 1987, appears on all three resignation letters which is Defendant’s Exhibit 242. Why does the date appear on there?

Page 1053

A Because after me and Mr. Miscavige had our little chat on the ship area after the gun incident, he said, you know: “We have your undated resignation, but just help us,” you know, “do everything right now.” You know: “We’re talking again. You’re going to take this fall; you’re going to do this. Would you please just do it again and sign these new ones?”

And I said, “Yes, I’ll do it.”

So that’s why these are signed this way.

Q So there exists other resignation letters that are undated?

A Yes, correct.

Q Have you seen those? Have they been produced to you ever?

A Not today.

Q Have you ever seen them before this?

A Sure.

Q Where?

A In the Religious Technology Center in my office, where I signed it. I also saw it in David Miscavige’s office on the day that I was removed from the executive position of Religious Technology Center.

Q Okay. So on the resignation letters that are in evidence, those are the ones you actually signed on March 3rd of 1987?

Page 1054

A Correct.

Q Okay. And you did that because your friend David Miscavige asked you to do it?

A Correct.

Q You weren’t threatened and forced to do it?

A Correct.

Q Were you being a good Scientologist when you signed that?

A Absolutely.

Q All right. Now, Mr. Houghton, who is a defendant in this case, who is in the MLO office, who is the one that came up with the idea of using a syringe to get aspirin and Benadryl —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. First of all, to the form; he’s just testifying.

Secondly, he’s misstating the testimony.

And thirdly, it’s beyond the scope of my cross-examination. I didn’t ask anything about Mr. Houghton.

THE COURT: I suspect he’s going to go back to the CSW that you felt compelled to raise in some fashion.

MR. WEINBERG: That’s fine. But then —

MR. DANDAR: How do you know that?

MR. WEINBERG: — I object to the form. Then I object to the form, as he’s just making a

Page 1055

speech.

THE COURT: Your objection to form is overruled because he’s not. He’s trying to provide some background to see if this witness can answer a question.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Houghton stated on page 71 of his deposition, where the question begins on line 18, as follows.

Question —

THE COURT: You folks back there, I can hear you clear up here, so it must be disconcerting to Mr. Dandar. So keep your voices down. Or you may step out of the room at anytime you need to speak in a loud voice.

Go ahead.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Question: “And where did you get the money to buy the prescription?”

Answer: “I got it from Alain Kartuzinski.”

Question: “And why did you go to him to get the money?”

Answer: “I didn’t have the personal funds to pay for it. I didn’t know. I don’t know exactly why I went to Alain. I don’t know what events led me up to getting the money from Alain, but I do know that’s where I got the

Page 1056

money.”

The question is, Is Mr. Kartuzinski, back in November and December of 1995, pursuant to his testimony in this case, part of the MLO?

A No.

Q What was he?

A He was the Senior CS —

THE COURT: I’ll tell counsel what you really don’t have to do is ask this witness that. I would know that.

MR. DANDAR: Sorry.

THE COURT: You can save a lot of this for closing argument.

MR. DANDAR: All right. There’s so much of that.

All right. That takes care of this part.

Let’s put this away.

THE COURT: Is this a witness, by chance, that has just come in?

A SPEAKER: (Shook head negatively.) No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Welcome then. I didn’t want somebody to come in that was maybe going to testify.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Page 1057

Q All right. Mr. Prince, in your tenure in Clearwater at the Lisa McPherson Trust, did you ever see the Church of Scientology picketing the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A Absolutely. You know — yes. Yes, many times.

Q Would they do it in front of the building, the office?

A They would do it in front of the building. They would do it inside the building. There’s many police reports of Scientologists running and screaming, disrupting activities. Again, my friend — my good friend, Judge Penick, can speak about that. And we watched videos for days. He would be a great witness about that.

Q Okay. All right. Do you know if anyone from the Lisa McPherson Trust hired private investigators to follow Church members around?

A Never.

Q Go to their homes and picket their homes?

A Never.

Q Pass out leaflets in their neighborhood?

A No.

Q Now, even though you left the Church of Scientology, have you ever divulged the confidential PC folders of the people that you either audited or were a case supervisor over?

Page 1058

A No, I have not, never.

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg went back and talked to you about your deposition that you gave on behalf of Religious Technology Center, where their former attorney, Joseph Yanny, was suing them or RTC was suing him. I’m not sure.

Do you remember which way that was?

A I don’t remember which way it was going.

Q Okay. But anyway, that was back in 1989, while you were still in your demoted status?

A You know, that had been some years past that, yes.

Q Okay. And when you met — you said you met with Mr. Earle Cooley, the attorney for RTC, before your deposition commenced?

A Correct.

Q Do you also recall meeting with a person by the name of Lynn Farney?

A Yes.

Q And the reason why I know this is it’s in your deposition copy that Mr. Weinberg gave me. Before today — in fact, as you sit here today, have you ever seen a copy of that deposition?

A No.

Q That deposition is dated September 11th of 1989.

Mr. Weinberg questioned you in your deposition in this case

Page 1059

that was taken in ’99, ten years after the RTC deposition.

Do you remember him questioning you about that deposition?

A Yes.

Q Did he give you a copy of that deposition back then?

A No.

Q Now, Mr. Farney, do you know — back at the time that he and Mr. Cooley, the attorney, met with you before the RTC deposition, do you know what position he had?

A Mr. Farney had been on a Rehabilitation Project Force with myself. Mr. Lynn Farney is a person that I used to create and establish the Office of Special Affairs at International. I had —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, he just asked him what position he was in at the time that he supposedly had this meeting with him. Now we’re getting the whole history. Can he just answer the question, please?

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q At the time of his deposition, what was his position?

A Mr. Farney was working in OSA International. It was my belief that Mr. Farney was working in OSA International.

Page 1060

THE COURT: I’m sorry, I must have missed the beginning of this. What did you initially ask him? If Mr. Farney was —

MR. DANDAR: Part of the meeting preparing Mr. Prince for deposition in the RTC case.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: RTC slash Yanny, Y-a-n-n-e-y.

THE WITNESS: Y-a-n-n-y.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Thank you.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Farney is someone that you worked with in establishing the Office of Special Affairs?

A Correct.

Q Do you remember what year that was?

A ’84. ’83, ’84.

Q Okay. And are you aware that Mr. Farney is also the person who met with all the staff members after Lisa McPherson’s death?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor —

A No, I was not aware of that.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection to form. He’s testifying.

THE COURT: True. Sustained. However, he wasn’t aware of it, so —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand. It’s just —

Page 1061

THE COURT: Remember, questions aren’t evidence, only the answers.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, in that meeting before your deposition, who instructed you to avoid telling the truth in your deposition?

A Mr. Rathbun and Mr. Cooley.

THE COURT: Is it Rathburn or Rathbun?

MR. WEINBERG: Bun.

THE COURT: Bun.

THE WITNESS: Rathbun.

THE COURT: B-u-n.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

MR. DANDAR: And it’s Ms. Brooks, not Mrs. Brooks. Never mind.

MR. WEINBERG: R-a-t-h-b-u-n.

MR. DANDAR: I’m sorry. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did it surprise you when Mr. Cooley and Mr. Rathbun were giving you instructions on not telling the truth?

A No, it did not.

Q And why is that?

A Because it’s expected.

Q Why is that?

Page 1062

A Because you have to protect Scientology. You have to protect — you know, it’s like placing Scientology and Scientologists at risk being a crime. You have — you are expected as a member of the Church of Scientology to do and say whatever you have to to preserve Scientology, to preserve its leaders.

Q Is that a written policy?

A Probably.

Q And Mr. Yanny —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, your Honor, could we just identify that policy if that’s a written policy?

He said “probably.”

THE COURT: I assume probably he couldn’t tell us —

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: — or he would have given us a number.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you tell us — without giving a number, but can you tell us generally what policy you’re talking about?

A As I sit here today without the materials, I could not, but I could certainly submit a declaration on it at a later point.

Q All right. What is an acceptable truth?

Page 1063

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. I didn’t ask him about —

THE COURT: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: Beyond the scope.

THE COURT: I think he already — didn’t you already ask that on direct?

MR. DANDAR: I did, I did.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, you said —

THE COURT: Didn’t you also testify about the greatest good for the greatest number?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I did.

THE COURT: So we’ve heard, I think, a lot of that.

MR. DANDAR: You have, I’m sorry.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Were you working for RTC at the time of that deposition in 1989?

A No, I was not.

Q Well, Mr. Yanny was the former president — or, attorney for RTC, correct?

A Correct.

Q Why was he suing RTC? What was that litigation about?

A You know, what I recall about that is that when

Page 1064

Joseph Yanny was hired, he was hired by myself and Ms. Aznaran as the lead counsel for the Religious Technology Center. When he was hired —

THE COURT: Who was? I’m sorry.

THE WITNESS: Mr. Joseph Yanny, the attorney that was hired.

THE COURT: Mr. Yanny was an attorney?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

MR. DANDAR: In fact, Judge —

Did we mark that as an exhibit at deposition? I’d like to have that marked as an exhibit since it was used. But Mr. Yanny is the one that actually took over questioning of Mr. Prince on the pertinent pages that Mr. Weinberg pointed out, although Mr. Yanny had his own attorney there. He took it over because Mr. Yanny — like me and Mr. Lirot. I have all this stuff in my head and I know what’s going on.

So the transcript — and I’d like to make that — and I will make it an exhibit if it’s not — shows that Mr. Yanny took over the questioning of Mr. Prince in that 1989 deposition.

THE COURT: Normally we don’t use as an

Page 1065

exhibit something that is just strictly used for impeachment purposes.

MR. WEINBERG: That’s why I didn’t do it.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: But if you want to make it an exhibit, why, that’s your — you can try to do that.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, you stated to Mr. Weinberg —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, let me object. I mean, let me intercede for just a second. Just so it’s clear, Mr. Yanny was the party, was the plaintiff. And I think that was clear, but I’m not sure if it was.

THE COURT: I got it.

MR. WEINBERG: RTC was the defendant.

THE COURT: I didn’t realize Mr. Yanny was a lawyer. That’s why I —

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So you hired Mr. Yanny to be the attorney for RTC?

A Mr. Yanny was — yes, I did, to be the lead counsel for RTC. RTC had other attorneys, but Mr. Yanny

Page 1066

was hired to be the lead counsel for the Religious Technology Center at that time.

Q And is it for any particular case?

MR. WEINBERG: Object. Your Honor, I believe this is all beyond the scope. All I did was impeach him on his false testimony, which he admitted was false in that deposition. Now to get to the history of that lawsuit or Joseph Yanny I think is beyond the scope and not relevant to this proceeding either.

THE COURT: I would tend to agree with that, Counsel. You know, if you think it’s relevant and there’s something you can tell me about this, I’ll listen to you. But it’s just another one of these lawsuits, many, many lawsuits.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince, do you know whether or not any of the allegations made between RTC and Joseph Yanny had anything to do with Mr. Yanny perjuring himself or suborning perjury?

THE COURT: That would be relevant.

A I don’t know. I don’t remember it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q You don’t?

Page 1067

A No.

Q All right. Now, did Mr. Yanny have anything to do with any of the Wollersheim litigation?

A Yes, he did. The Wollersheim —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. That was a yes or no question, and to — if we get into the details, I’m going to object because it’s beyond the scope and it’s not relevant.

THE COURT: That would be true.

MR. DANDAR: Except he brought up the question, Mr. Weinberg did, about Mr. Prince’s testimony of destruction of the PC folders.

THE COURT: Oh, right.

MR. WEINBERG: And I impeached him on it with the Yanny deposition. He admitted it. He said he lied in the deposition. That’s all I used it for.

THE COURT: Well, I think at this point we’ll see what his question is.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Was Mr. Yanny involved in representing RTC against Mr. Wollersheim?

A Yes.

Q And was Mr. Yanny involved when Mr. Wollersheim’s PC folders were destroyed?

Page 1068

A He had no personal knowledge of it.

Q Was any attorney for Scientology involved in that in any degree?

A The only one that I know of that would have had information about that would have been Mr. Earle Cooley.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, “would have had.”

I mean, is he saying he did have?

THE WITNESS: I can explain if you would like me to.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Go ahead. Explain it.

A The decision to do this was made in a conference room at Author Services with myself, Vicki Asnaran, Mr. Rathbun was there, Mr. Cooley was there, and this all has to do with —

And we were sitting in the conference room discussing it. Mr. Starkey may have been there, Mr. Norman Starkey.

THE COURT: This is when you discussed

Page 1069

destruction of these records?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: So Mr. Cooley would have heard this? Is that what you’re saying?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And whose idea was it to destroy the records?

A As best as I can recall, it was Ms. Aznaran that said, “We have to destroy the folders.” Mr. Miscavige and everyone else agreed, so that’s what was done.

Q And did the folders contain information that would hurt the Church of Scientology?

A Yes, it — apparently, you know, that’s what they felt.

Q Okay.

THE COURT: That’s what you felt too. Right? You were there.

THE WITNESS: Well, I had actually never seen Mr. Wollersheim’s Preclear folders. I had never audited him.

THE COURT: But you didn’t have a problem destroying it.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Page 1070

Q And why didn’t you have a problem destroying his records?

A Because, like every good Scientologist, you have to protect Scientology. You have to protect the integrity of Scientology, its leadership, so that it would carry on because it’s the greatest good. Scientologists believe that Scientology is man’s only answer to freedom.

Q Now, did you have to understand — I’m sorry.

Did I interrupt you?

A No, go ahead.

Q Did you understand at any point in time there was actually a court order to produce the entire PC folders of Mr. Wollersheim after the Church only produced a little bit of it?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, relevancy. He’s already — and beyond the scope and all that —

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. WEINBERG: — other stuff.

THE COURT: I’m sustaining it as beyond the scope.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Well —

THE COURT: I mean, frankly, I think we’ve already been over this.

MR. WEINBERG: I do too. That’s why I objected.

Page 1071

THE COURT: I don’t need to hear it several times.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, Mr. Prince —

MR. WEINBERG: Just so it’s clear, our position is no PC folders were destroyed.

THE COURT: I understand that. I understand that too.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you understand that Mr. Wollersheim was — did allege that his PC folders were destroyed?

THE COURT: I mean, what are we using —

MR. DANDAR: I’m sorry.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me ask you this question. This is what I’m leading up to. Mr. Prince, you said that you lied in your deposition in the Yanny vs. RTC case?

A Correct.

Q And you said you sat in this meeting where Mr. Miscavige and Mr. Cooley was at this meeting where a decision was made to destroy evidence of PC folders of Mr. Wollersheim?

A Correct.

Q And Mr. Aznaran is the one who actually went out

Page 1072

to the paper mill and had it pulped?

A Correct.

Q And you did that because you were being loyal to the Church of Scientology?

Q Mr. Prince, are you testifying for the Estate of Lisa McPherson or for me because you’re loyal to the Estate, to the cause, or to Ken Dandar?

A No. I’m testifying because it’s the right thing to do. It’s very difficult to divine truth from — I’m not trying to be vicious here, but it’s very difficult to divine truth from Scientology. People that are currently working on this case, they’ll do anything they can to obstruct it. They’ll do anything they can to make sure —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor.

A — that you can’t find out the truth, and —

Page 1073

MR. WEINBERG: He’s going on and on and on.

A — that’s why I do that.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. He was asked a leading question, Are you testifying because you were loyal to the —

THE COURT: Actually, that wasn’t leading because his answer was no.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I understand he said no. Now he’s going off into some big explanation.

THE COURT: That’s true. If you want to ask him why are you testifying, then he can go on with his explanation.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. Why are you testifying in this hearing?

A To give justice and equity a chance — a fair chance, to give all the information, to be able to give the full view of what’s going on. You know, I think it would be fair — it’s only fair that the whole picture is seen.

Q Mr. Prince, Mr. Minton and Stacy Brooks offered to continue to pay you $5,000 a month if you, quote, went down the road with them, close quote, and lied. Isn’t that true?

A I was promised a lot more than that.

Q What else were you promised to lie?

Page 1074

A Retirement.

Q Did they go into any specific details?

A Financial security that will retire me for the rest of my life.

Q Any dollar figures discussed?

A A quarter of a million. That’s normally what Mr. Minton does when he gives people money.

Q Would a quarter of a million be enough?

A For me to retire for the rest of my life? No. I think I’m too young. I would need more. I would have to need more.

Q And is there any doubt in your mind that Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks proposed this to you, to lie, that they knew that they wanted you to lie?

A Absolutely. They knew they were lying. They knew we all had to lie. I mean, this is the only thing that they felt they could do to end it, disengage, to be done with it. I mean, there’s only so long you can wrestle with this demon.

Q Okay.

THE COURT: And you don’t need, Mr. Weinberg, when it’s your turn, to get up and respond to that. It’s for money, he testified. So I understand where both of you all are coming from here.

MR. WEINBERG: I wasn’t even going to make

Page 1075

that point.

MR. DANDAR: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: One short point on that.

THE COURT: Well, I saw you getting — fuming, and I was thinking, “Oh, dear.”

MR. WEINBERG: I was thinking about all the calls I have to return.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, when you and I met at the mall with Mr. Lirot, Mr. Haverty, and your fiance and you wrote out what’s attached to your declaration, the handwritten note of April 14th, 2002, did I promise you money at all?

A None at all. Money wasn’t even discussed.

Q Did I pay you any money for writing that note?

A Absolutely not.

Q Did I promise to pay you money in the future if you wrote that note?

A No, you did not.

Q And isn’t it true or — what’s the reason why I gave you a retainer of 4,000?

A Because my time is as valuable as anyone else’s.

Q And you’ve been working on this — this hearing preparing documents for me?

A Correct.

THE COURT: You are back now as Mr. Dandar’s

Page 1076

consultant? Is that it?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: And expert?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q I certainly haven’t promised you any retirement money, have I?

A No, you have not.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could we have a direct question instead of a leading question?

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, when you were in LMT, did you know that the — and if I asked this, I’ll — I don’t remember asking this — do you know whether or not the LMT received an anonymous $300,000 from Clambake?

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, this is beyond the scope. I didn’t ask about it.

THE COURT: It’s beyond the scope. The truth of the matter is, rather than recall, if this is an area that he thinks is important, I’m going to let him get into it.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Page 1077

Q Did you know that they got money from Clambake?

A The only — you know, I found out about that —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could he just answer the question?

THE WITNESS: I’m trying to answer the question.

THE COURT: Counsel, just let it go, would you?

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: We need to get through this.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

A I found out about that whole deal with money coming from wherever it came from when Teresa Summers wrote her resignation letter to Stacy Brooks and I read it, where that was mentioned.

THE COURT: So the truth — you did not know about the 300,000, who it came from. Mr. Minton never discussed this with you —

THE WITNESS: Correct, correct.

THE COURT: — is that right?

THE WITNESS: That’s right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And did you ever — while you were with LMT, did you ever hear the phrase “the fat man”?

A No.

Page 1078

Q Okay. Now, with this Key West fishing trip in the summer of 1999, as best I can phrase that, you had already been working for me for a few months, correct?

A Correct.

Q Now, the other people that showed up down in Key West, like Mr. Ford Greene, is that someone that you had ever seen me with before that fishing trip?

A No.

Q Did I go on the fishing trip?

A No, you did not.

Q Did I stay with you and Mr. Leipold and Mr. Greene and Mr. Haverty?

A No.

Q Oh, in that release that’s in evidence, Defendant’s Exhibit No. 231, that release language says that you are conceding or admitting that you were not harmed by the Church of Scientology. Do you have any reason to know why that was put in your release?

A Yes. That was put in the release for the same reason that Scientologists are asked to lie. It’s to protect Scientology at all costs.

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg asked you on cross if you had any personal knowledge of whether or not David Miscavige was physically at the Fort Harrison Hotel while Lisa McPherson was there in November and December of ’95. Do

Page 1079

you remember that?

A Yes.

Q Mr. Prince, would it matter where David Miscavige was physically located as to whether or not he would have knowledge and was personally involved with the care and treatment of Lisa McPherson?

A In my opinion, no.

Q Why not?

A Well, with the state of technology today, it makes no difference whatsoever. But also, based on past experience that I have had with Mr. Miscavige during the Wollersheim case, we were really just a short distance away, and while the hearings were going on, people were calling and reporting all the time. There’s no problem of getting an on-the-ground report immediately in any place in Scientology for Mr. Miscavige.

THE COURT: It is your opinion — I’m sure you’ve probably testified to this, but I can’t remember. I’ve heard from several people. It is your opinion that Mr. Miscavige was kept advised at all times of Lisa McPherson and her situation.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it is my opinion that once the situation where she got out of the car and was admitted to the hospital and it became a matter for Office of Special Affairs’ concern, then he

Page 1080

was — he knew about it.

THE COURT: Was it your opinion while she was admittedly PTS-III, undergoing introspection rundown, he would be kept advised of this and the progress?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Or lack of progress?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg asked you to —

THE COURT: And that opinion comes from your having been around him when he was head of RTC?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Or ASI?

THE WITNESS: Both.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: When Mr. Hubbard was alive and was the head ecclesiastical leader of the Church, would he have been kept advised of PTS Type III introspection rundown?

THE WITNESS: He would have taken it over and dealt with it himself.

THE COURT: My question is, Would he have been kept advised?

Page 1081

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Wherever it was being conducted?

THE WITNESS: Well, in all honesty, your Honor, I have to answer this and say that towards the end of Mr. Hubbard’s life —

THE COURT: Forget when folks say he was mad. I understood that.

THE WITNESS: Oh, okay.

THE COURT: When he was in charge of the Church and head ecclesiastical leader, would he have been kept advised of that type of situation, with either a public or staff member of Scientology?

THE WITNESS: Absolutely, your Honor.

THE COURT: Is there any question in your mind whatsoever about that?

THE WITNESS: None whatsoever. He would have taken it over and did it himself.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg asked you to admit that there’s no written policy in the Church of Scientology to go out and kill somebody, and you said that’s true. Do you recall that?

THE COURT: I’m sorry, what’s that?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q There’s no written policy in the Church of

Page 1082

Scientology to go and kill somebody.

A Well, there’s one thing that came into evidence here. It was the SP declare of — I think I read down the list. It was maybe eight people. And in that —

THE COURT: I’m sorry, what came into evidence? The, what, SP?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. It was an SP declare. It was a single sheet of a paper by L. Ron Hubbard declaring — I think it was eight people suppressive persons and declared them fair game. And then on one of the lines, L. Ron Hubbard gave instructions whereby he said any Sea Org member encountering any of the above persons is to use process R245 on them.
Process R245 —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

THE WITNESS: — is a process —

MR. WEINBERG: — your Honor, objection.

This was the document that was not admitted that Mr. Prince is now testifying about. It was the phony document.

MR. DANDAR: Phony —

MR. WEINBERG: And this is way beyond the scope of my cross-examination.

THE COURT: It’s not beyond the scope because you made it clear there’s absolutely no basis

Page 1083

upon which to make the assertions that he has. Now, if he has a basis, he would be permitted to testify. So it’s not beyond the scope.

MR. WEINBERG: This document that he’s talking about is not in evidence.

THE COURT: All right. If that’s true, then he can’t refer to that document.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. I thought it was.

THE COURT: Well, go find it. Let’s take a break and we’ll see whether it is or not. I couldn’t begin to tell you what documents are in and what ones aren’t. But the clerk would have them, whether they were admitted or not.

MR. DANDAR: Right. Before we take a break, let me ask one more question.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In your tenure at the Church of Scientology, did you ever see anything in writing called R245?

A Yes. It actually comes from a tape lecture. And I forget which tape lecture it was specifically, but it talks about R245 being an effective exteriorization process, whereby the person takes a .45, puts it to his head — a loaded .45, puts it to his head, pulls the trigger, and blows their brains out. That releases the

Page 1084

spirit from the body.

Q Is that a lecture by — who?

A L. Ron Hubbard.

MR. DANDAR: All right. Let’s take our break and let me find that.

THE COURT: All right. It’s 25 after.

We’ll take 15 minutes.

(A break was taken at 10:25 a.m. until approximately 10:55 a.m.)

THE COURT: All right. Where is Mr. Prince?

THE WITNESS: I’m here, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may resume the stand.

You all may be seated.

And, Mr. Dandar, did you find whether that was in or out of evidence?

MR. DANDAR: It was out. And for the clerk’s benefit, I still have it, so make sure I give it back to her. Somewhere. It’s on my table.

Here it is. I have this tendency of walking away with exhibits.

THE COURT: Are we having a light show?

MR. DANDAR: They had a TV or a signal that keeps coming in. We started to watch a soap opera there for a minute.

THE COURT: I see.

Page 1085

MR. DANDAR: But I have a videotape of a Boston picket. And the only reason I want to put this on is because Mr. Weinberg used Mr. Prince picketing in his cross-examination. But this shows what happened before the clip-it, the snippet, that Mr. Weinberg showed.

MR. WEINBERG: Just so it’s clear, this is a different day than the picket that I showed. But he can play it.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Ken (motioning to move).

THE WITNESS: It has no audio.

MR. DANDAR: Let’s stop it. Because I did that too.

MR. WEINBERG: Do you know the date of this?

MR. DANDAR: It’s in the beginning of the tape. Just a minute, and I’ll get everything here.

(The tape of the picket was played, entitled “Boston, September 10th, 1998, unedited.”

As noted below, the tape was not reportable and is not transcribed herein.)

THE COURT: Isn’t that pleasant.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I just put that on to show you it’s not a one-way street.

THE COURT: I understand.

Page 1086

MR. DANDAR: Now, Mr. Prince —

THE COURT: Madam Court Reporter?

THE REPORTER: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: If you didn’t get all that, you can put in the record — because this tape can be put in — that it was just a lot of shouting and carrying on and that you did the best you could.

THE REPORTER: Thank you very much, your Honor.

MR. WEINBERG: Are you marking that as an exhibit?

THE COURT: Make a copy of it for the record, because there’s no way the court reporter could be expected to get all that. Talk about your proverbial everybody talking at once.

MR. DANDAR: That would be impossible to write down.

THE COURT: Yes, it would.

So I’m sure you did the best you could, but as far as I’m concerned, it could be basically said you must see the tape because it’s everybody talking at once and loud and obnoxious.

MR. DANDAR: Since Mr. Lirot is bringing in our next witness, I’m going to mark it as 135A because he has all of his exhibits premarked —

Page 1087

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: — starting with 136. So the videotape of Boston, September 10th, ’98, is Plaintiff’s 135A.

MR. WEINBERG: Plaintiff’s 135A.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: It was 9/10?

THE COURT: 9/10/98.

MR. WEINBERG: And you received that into evidence, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, the people that were engaging you and Mr. Minton in that picket, where were they from?

A Office of Special Affairs, Boston.

Q Now, Mr. Prince, you talked about the taped lecture series of Mr. Hubbard where he describes R245?

A Correct.

Q And have you seen that?

A I have seen that.

Q Or heard it, whatever it is. I don’t know what it is.

A Yes, I heard it before, read the transcript.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I have a TV — which I

Page 1088

believe is a TV interview of Mr. Hubbard where he talks about this policy that he wrote called R245.

THE COURT: Well, if this is a lecture of Mr. Hubbard, why, what could be objectionable with Mr. Hubbard —

MR. LIEBERMAN: It’s the characterization of it as a policy.

THE COURT: All right. That will be sustained.

MR. LIEBERMAN: The characterization of what actually was —

MR. DANDAR: I apparently misspoke, I’m sorry. I’ll have Mr. Prince talk about what it is.

As soon as we identify — this is, I believe, Mr. Hubbard speaking, so . . .

THE COURT: What number is it?

MR. DANDAR: Exhibit number? This will be 135B.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we just ask the relevance of playing a 1950 speech of L. Ron Hubbard?

Page 1089

MR. DANDAR: If he’s objecting because of the age of the speech, I think it’s quite clear that the age of any document Mr. Hubbard wrote or spoke about has no significance —

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

MR. DANDAR: — in the Church of Scientology. Everything remains the same.

THE COURT: What is it, though? I don’t understand. Is this a —

MR. WEINBERG: This is redirect.

MR. DANDAR: He brought this up on cross.

THE COURT: What did he bring up?

MR. DANDAR: Mr. Weinberg brought up on cross that there’s no written policy of the Church of Scientology about killing somebody.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: He objected to that Flag order because it wasn’t properly authenticated. That’s fine. It spoke of R245. There’s another publication we’re going to bring in that is current and published by the Church of Scientology that does mention R245.

MR. WEINBERG: What I had asked, just so it’s clear, was there any policy to kill somebody, and he said no. But secondly —

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it, Counsel.

Page 1090

Overruled.

I hope this isn’t terribly long. Is it?

MR. DANDAR: It is. I think it’s 35 minutes.

THE COURT: I’m not going to listen to 35 minutes.

MR. DANDAR: All right. Maybe — what I would like to do over lunch is go down right to the specific area.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, your Honor, you see, that’s the problem. I understand your Honor doesn’t want to listen to 35 minutes. You shouldn’t have to listen to 35 minutes. But you cannot take a speech and say this is a religious policy and take two minutes out of an entire lecture about religious matters and then play it and pretend that that gives you any idea as to the context of what’s going on.

THE COURT: All right. I’ll listen to the whole thing.

MR. LIEBERMAN: I don’t want — I’m not urging you.

MR. DANDAR: Let’s do this after lunch. Is that all right?

THE COURT: All right. Let’s do it about 4 o’clock.

Page 1091

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. We’ll do it after lunch.

MR. DANDAR: I hope Mr. Prince is still not on the stand by 4 o’clock. In fact, I think he should be over quite soon.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, talking about policies of the Church of Scientology, Mr. Prince, are you familiar with the additional steps in evidence, the policy of additional steps of an introspection rundown, where Mr. Hubbard writes that the introspection rundown can be deadly?

A Yes.

Q Are you familiar with search and discovery, the PSSSP course, where it states that some psychotics cannot be kept alive?

A Yes, I am.

Q How do you audit someone who is unconscious?

A Well, I can tell you a process. If a person is laying unconscious on a bed, you simply give them a command, “Give me that hand,” and then you actually execute that command by taking a person’s hand and putting it in your hand. And once you do that, you say, “Thank you.”

And then you put the hand back and say, “Give me that hand.” And you do that repeatedly, over and over.

Page 1092

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg asked you about the Teresita introspection rundown that you participated in — is it Soboba?

A Soboba Indian Reservation.

Q Okay. Is that — was your experience in that introspection rundown similar to what Lisa McPherson experienced?

A I don’t think so.

Q What were the differences?

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. “What were the differences,” I mean, he doesn’t have any personal knowledge —

THE COURT: No, but I assume as consultant he read all of the depositions of those who did. So I suspect he can testify about that.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Did you read the — did you read the depositions or the statements —

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: — from the persons who were attending Lisa McPherson?

THE WITNESS: Yes, and I read the notes as well.

MR. WEINBERG: On direct, he already did that. I didn’t ask him to — not — to do anything

Page 1093

different on cross, and now Mr. Dandar is asking him to do the same thing that he did on direct.

THE COURT: I don’t recall this on direct.

Overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Go ahead. What is the differences? What are the differences?

A The difference being number one that Teresita was a staff member. Mrs. McPherson was a paying Scientology public. Teresita had no intentions of leaving staff or departing from Scientology. Lisa McPherson did.

Beyond that — and, again, there’s so many records. I mean, it’s stated that she was on the introspection rundown. Yet there is no program, there is no evidence, there’s no invoice, there’s no running form, there’s none of those things in evidence that would be in evidence if a person was on an introspection rundown in fact.

And — but as far as the manifestations of wanting to get out of the room that she was locked in, there’s certainly similarities there. But those are some of the differences.

Q When — to your knowledge, your personal knowledge with Teresita, did people talk to Teresita?

Page 1094

A Yes.

Q And — during the entire introspection rundown?

A I mean, no one held long conversations with her. But just basic civility. You know, you walk in a room and you see a person, you say hi. The person says something to you. You either acknowledge or answer the questions. You know, simple things like that.

Q Did you have to assist in any way or did you see others assist in any way Teresita in drinking water?

A Yes.

Q How did they do it?

A Sit down next to her with a glass of water with ice and a straw and sometimes they put — the girls would do it, and I would do it, you know, put your arm around her. Teresita seemed to like that. She was very childlike at times. And hold the straw to her face, and she would drink through the straw. When she would stop, you know, you would tell her: “You just need to drink a little bit more water because it’s good for you. It’s hot out here; it’s the desert. Be a good girl. Drink a little bit more.” And she would drink it.

Q And did you ever see her do that, as time went on in her introspection rundown, where she wouldn’t drink water on her own?

A Yes. But I certainly wouldn’t have any way of

Page 1095

making her drink water if she didn’t want to drink it.

Q Okay. What I’m saying is, did you ever observe her just pick up, without being coached or coaxed, pick up a glass of water or bottled water and just drink it by herself?

A Oh, sure.

Q Was that in the beginning, the middle, or the end, or throughout?

A You know, with Teresita, I don’t think the water was so much an issue because it — at a point in time she wasn’t aware of it, but as she went through introspection and we sat with her and made her drink it, that she came to understand that it was part of the routine, that she had to drink X amount of water every day or, you know, during certain time periods.

Q You said Mr. Hubbard’s doctor, Dr. Denk, came to see her?

A Yes, he did.

Q How many times?

A Once that I know of.

Q And he administered something to her?

A Yes, he did.

Q All right. After he left, did he leave any medicine behind or something for others to administer to her?

Page 1096

A Yes. There were some pills.

Q Do you know what they were?

A I do not. I do not recall what they were.

Q All right.

A But I know they were to make her sleep.

Q Okay. Did he leave instructions with people how often to give that?

A Yes, he did. I think we were to break the tablets in half, to not give her a strong dose, or even lesser amounts and crush it up and mix it in with a protein drink.

Q Do you know of any licensed medical doctor who came in to see Lisa McPherson?

A No, I do not.

Q Do you know if Teresita received a medical examination by a licensed medical doctor before or during — outside of Dr. Denk? Well, let me start — that was a terrible question.

A Yes, he did. He looked in her eyes, looked in her ears, checked her mouth, you know, pressed certain areas of her body to see if it was sore or she would react, check their feet, check their arms, check their back, check their neck.

Page 1097

Q Okay. Was anything else done as far as the medical exam outside of what you just said?

A Not — no, not — I don’t think so.

Q Okay. Now, you mentioned on cross-examination meeting with me and preparing that handwritten note that’s dated April 14th, 2002, the past year, a typed affidavit.

Why did you prepare a handwritten note?

A I felt it was important to preserve in some fashion what I had discussed with you, what had been going on. And since I had plans to investigate it further, in case something happened to me when I went off to see those people that at least there would have been something left written by me that would have indicated something was going on.

Q Now, the day that you prepared that written statement, that was the night you were supposed to meet with Mr. Rinder?

A Correct.

Q Did I assist you at all in preparing that written statement?

A No, you did not.

Q In fact, you purposely went away from me —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection as to the form, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Page 1098

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. How close were you to me when you wrote that document?

A I separated myself and went to a different table and did the document.

Q Okay. Now, in that affidavit that you prepared — you typed that all by yourself, correct?

A Correct.

THE COURT: Which affidavit are we talking about?

MR. DANDAR: The —

THE COURT: The last one?

MR. DANDAR: The last one, April 2002, that was actually executed —

THE WITNESS: May 1st.

MR. DANDAR: — May 1st.

THE COURT: What was the date of the last visit with Mr. Minton, Ms. Brooks? What was the date?

MR. DANDAR: What was the date? Was it that Sunday?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it was a Sunday.

THE COURT: The 14th.

MR. DANDAR: The 14th of April.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, in that affidavit, Mr. Weinberg pointed out

Page 1099

on cross that you put in the wrong date. You put in August of 2001, and Mr. Minton told you on the top of the garage about his last check to me of 500,000?

A Correct.

Q As you sit here today, what are you positive about in reference to that conversation with Mr. Minton?

A Everything that I’ve testified to.

Q When did it take place?

A It took place — you know, I can’t say the exact month, you know. I’m sorry, I wish I could do better with that. But I know it was very warm. I know that specifically it was a $500,000 check.

Q If I told you to assume that Mr. Minton only delivered to me one check for $500,000, was this conversation with Mr. Minton before or after he delivered the check?

A After.

Q And do you have any idea if it was before or after he gave a deposition in May of 2000?

A No, I have no idea.

Q Okay. Now, you mentioned that, when you met with Mr. Minton after he testified before Judge Baird on April 9th, you then telephoned Frank Oliver?

A Correct.

Q To ask Frank Oliver to call me to have me call

Page 1100

you?

A Correct.

Q Why did you go through that circuitous route?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, because he did —

I asked him the same question, why did you do that, and he explained it.

THE COURT: I think it’s been asked and answered.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay. Why did you feel your home was bugged?

A Because a person that was hired by Scientology, a private investigator named David Amos, contacted me here in Clearwater, and I went to visit with him in Memphis, Tennessee, and he told me —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. That’s hearsay, your Honor, whatever — he had some conversation with some guy David Amos.

THE COURT: It’s not introduced as to the truth of the matter asserted. It’s basically as to why he thought his house was bugged, not because it was bugged.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, then he had a conversation. We shouldn’t get into the details of the conversation, should we? Isn’t that just hearsay?

MR. DANDAR: It’s an exception.

Page 1101

THE COURT: I think it’s an exception. One of the exceptions I don’t really understand. I’m going to allow it.

A Mr. David Amos informed me that he had been hired by the Church of Scientology to surveil me, do surveillance on me, and to — what he was looking for, he told me, was that he had been briefed by his Scientology handlers in Los Angeles that Mr. Minton and I were involved in child slavery and we were — had child slaves that we were running around different countries. And Mr. Amos had a street ministry. He’s a very Christian man, and he has a street ministry where he helps abused children.

THE COURT: I don’t need to hear about all that.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: I need to hear why you thought your house was bugged.

A Anyway, he told me that he was specifically hired to bug my house in Chicago, and when I moved from Chicago to Clearwater, that he was hired to do the same there. And he agreed to come out and show me how he did it and where he did it. And I sent him plane tickets and I sent him money to come out to do that. And at the last minute, he got cold feet and didn’t do it. But I did report it to the FBI, the entire incident.

Page 1102

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you go out and visit Mr. Amos?

A Excuse me?

Q Did you actually meet with Mr. Amos?

A Yes, I did.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we get a date of this alleged conversation?

THE COURT: You can when it’s your turn. I don’t care if it’s true. As far as I’m concerned, it’s only why he thought his house was bugged.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. That’s fine.

THE COURT: Which is an explanation as to why he didn’t call from his house, which is all that’s relevant to this.

MR. WEINBERG: But the testimony, of course, is that he did call from the house. He got the call at the house anyway. That’s what he said.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you go to see Agent Strope of the FDLE before or after you went to Dennis deVlaming’s office?

A After.

Q And did you go to Dennis deVlaming’s office before or after you met me at the mall on April 14th?

MR. WEINBERG: Could he possibly hand it to us, see if we can identify it?

MR. DANDAR: This is a copy of a copy. This is not —

THE COURT: You couldn’t identify it.

MR. WEINBERG: I thought it might be something he had purchased.

Page 1104

THE COURT: No.

MR. DANDAR: No.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: I don’t want to leave here at 11:30 if you’ve got 35 minutes of tape you’re going to play. Are you done with Mr. Prince?

MR. DANDAR: Except for this.

THE COURT: All right. Well, put it in. Maybe Mr. Prince will let us know. I mean, I don’t know what Mr. Hubbard —

MR. WEINBERG: Could we just ask — where did Mr. Minton — Dandar get this, is all I’m asking.

MR. DANDAR: This is an interview of Mr. Hubbard from a Granada TV station.

THE COURT: It really doesn’t matter how he got it. He doesn’t ask you how you got your stuff.

MR. WEINBERG: No, no. I thought that this was the original lecture, but this is just a — this is actually just an interview, not the lecture.

MR. DANDAR: This is an interview —

THE COURT: We’ll see what it is, Counselor. Sit down.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. That’s fine.

MR. LIEBERMAN: At the expense of your Honor, I just want to point out that television can’t

Page 1105

possibly be policy letter of the Church of Scientology.

MR. DANDAR: We didn’t say it was a policy letter. It’s a lectured — of a tape lecture of Mr. Hubbard.

And I don’t know where this is taking me now.

MR. LIEBERMAN: It’s not a lecture, you said. It was a television interview.

MR. DANDAR: Well, we’ll see.

THE COURT: Surely you don’t all care if we watch Mr. Hubbard here for 35 minutes, do you? Then I wish you would sit down and let us watch it.

(The tape from Granada television was played as follows.)

THE NARRATOR: Tonight, Well in Action has tracked down one of the most elusive men on earth.

This was the end of our search, an ex-(unintelligible) for Royal Scotland, docked at (unintelligible — Deserta?), a small port in North Africa.

On board about 250 people, may be some sort of a crew, and this mysterious man. (Unintelligible) screen man thought he was a great scientist when (unintelligible). Everybody seems to think he’s a millionaire.

Page 1106

These are no ordinary seamen. Their allegiance and devotion to the mysterious man is total. To them, he is My Commodore. The man is L. Ron Hubbard, charmer, science fiction writer, and showman, the creator of Scientology, and the man who is pushing it into its new, more militant phase. He now requires that his crew must have training in judo and weaponry and must be ethically beyond reproach, tough, formidable, and effective. To them he’s a soldier.

One of them wrote: “That which I have really found is the nearness to the greatness, which is Ron, our founder –”

(The tape was interrupted.)

THE COURT: Stop this for a minute.

(Continuing with tape.)

THE NARRATOR: “– he, above all, My Commodore –”

(The tape was stopped.)

THE COURT: I don’t know what this is, but this is not Mr. Hubbard talking.

MR. PRINCE: There’s a little preamble, if you will, like a little introductory — this is an interviewer talking, and then Mr. Hubbard comes on.

THE COURT: Okay. Go on ahead.

Page 1107

MR. WEINBERG: Well, just so the record is clear, we do object to this, to the comments going in the record of this obviously reporter that was doing — I don’t think he was intending to do a favorable piece back in the ’50s with regard to the Church of Scientology. We object to his comments going into evidence. It’s like Dateline, NBC, or something, it sounds like.

THE COURT: I haven’t heard anything offensive yet.

(The tape was played as follows.)

THE NARRATOR: After several weeks of hunting for him, with the help of almost every radio station along the Mediterranean and beyond, Well in Action at last tracked Hubbard down. Just before dawn on a recent Sunday morning, Hubbard, who finds sleeping difficult, decided at last to speak. He spoke for a long, long time, about his money, his beliefs, his critics, and the new authoritarian structure of Scientology.

But first he spoke about his troubles with the British government. He put on his hat, he smiled, and he began.

MR. HUBBARD: Well, that’s very interesting.

Let’s correct the impression first. You said “you

Page 1108

were in trouble.” Let’s get my relationship to this completely straight. I am the writer of the textbooks of Scientology. About two and a half years ago or so, I even ceased to be a director of organizations.

The government — in the first place, I am not in trouble with the British government, not even faintly. If I went in today or tomorrow through immigration, they would tip their hats and say, “How are you, Mr. Hubbard?” just as they have been doing for years.

THE NARRATOR: The immigration officials might well tip their hats, but they couldn’t let him in. The day we filmed Mr. Hubbard, the home office decided that Britain would be better off without him.

Saint Hill Manor, England, Hubbard’s British headquarters —

(The tape was interrupted.)

THE COURT: Stop, stop.

(Continuing with tape.)

THE NARRATOR: — has made an income of something like one million pounds —

(The tape was stopped.)

THE COURT: This is not whatever you all said it was. This is more this other person than it is Mr. Hubbard. You — find what it is you want

Page 1109

play for me sometime and play it. I don’t want to hear all this other stuff.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: And your objection is sustained as far as this is not relevant. Whoever this is —

MR. DANDAR: That’s it right there? All right.

Go to the beginning of this. All right.

Sorry I had it wrong. Sorry.

(The tape was played as follows.)

THE NARRATOR: . . . simply to a layman what Scientology is.

MR. HUBBARD: I think that would be a relatively easy (unintelligible) because it’s factually a subject which is designed for the layman, and if you couldn’t explain it to a layman, you would have a very difficult time with it.

The subject name means “steel,” which means knowing how in the fullest sense of the word; “ology,” which is “study of.” So it’s actually study of knowingness. That is what the word itself means.

The —

THE NARRATOR: To me —

MR. HUBBARD: Yes.

THE NARRATOR: — to me that doesn’t mean

Page 1110

very much. (Unintelligible.) What does it do for you in theory?

MR. HUBBARD: It increases one’s knowingness. But if a man were totally aware of what was going on around him, he would find it was relatively simple to handle any outnesses in that.

THE NARRATOR: Even after twelve hours of talking, we never got an explanation from him that we could understand. In fact, Scientology is a fake, a religion —

(The tape was stopped.)

THE COURT: This is beyond —

MR. DANDAR: I apologize to the Court. Let me — let me find the spot that I’m trying to get to.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: And if Mr. Weinberg has recross —

THE COURT: Let’s get that done.

MR. DANDAR: I’ll try to get that done.

MR. WEINBERG: I take it the last comment was struck as well. Right?

THE COURT: It certainly was.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: As a matter of fact, none of this is admissible at this point. I don’t know that

Page 1111

whatever it is they’re trying to find would be admissible.

But you try to find it, Mr. Dandar, over lunch break and we’ll —

MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

THE COURT: — listen to it, and then I’ll see.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

You may cross-examine on the redirect.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.

HE COURT: It was very brief.

MR. WEINBERG: Right. Excuse me.

THE WITNESS: You have to turn that thing off, because it keeps getting the radio station.

MR. WEINBERG: I thought you were yelling at me.

THE COURT: No. I thought you were yelling at me.

MR. WEINBERG: I looked up there to see if it was 4 o’clock.

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you, the first time on redirect, said that Mr. Minton had offered you a lifetime pension to join him, whenever it was, April of 2002. Correct? That’s what you

Page 1112

said?

A Yes.

Q Now — and that typically —

THE COURT: He said “retirement.” I don’t know that if he used the word “pension.”

THE WITNESS: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q What you meant was you’re going to be taken care of the rest of your life?

A I meant what I said, which is I would be retired.

Q All right. And that from your experience it was — the people that fell in that category were the people that got the $250,000. Right?

A I gave examples of other people that have — when Mr. Minton has given money to people to last them, this is what it was.

Q Right, like Mr. Dandar in March got the $250,000.

A No. That was for the case.

Q Now — now, you didn’t — do you remember that affidavit, the May 1st affidavit, that you were asked again about?

A Yes.

Q Nowhere in that affidavit do you say that Mr. Pension — Mr. Minton offered you retirement, $250,000,or a lot of money?

Page 1113

A Well, I’m not sure.

Q You didn’t say that in there, yes or no?

A I’m not sure. I would have to look at the thing.

Q Do you want to do that?

A Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Unfortunately, we had left the documents up there, and they keep getting moved.

THE COURT: This may be it right here. I think I have it still.

THE WITNESS: I could look at that real quick, your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you want to look at my copy?

THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor. If you would just give me a moment to scan it.

A No, I don’t see that here. No, I didn’t include that in the declaration.

THE WITNESS: Thank you (handing back to Court).

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The truth is, you complained to Stacy Brooks that Mr. Minton had treated you differently and had just nickeled and dimed you over the years. Correct?

A I don’t —

Q Something like that?

A Not quite, no.

Page 1114

Q Well, you were unhappy because you had never been one of the recipients of one of those big $250,000 checks, right?

A I think that — no, that’s incorrect, because the context that we were speaking about is me selling my soul, lying, perjuring myself, lying about Mr. Dandar and whoever else Scientology would want to lie for, because, I mean, you know, they had their shopping list of everything they wanted to be gone. The Wollersheim was one; this was one.

I was supposed to do that. And, you know, I told him: You can’t do that. At no price can you make me turn on people that I have worked with for years for Scientology’s behalf.

And as a matter of fact, I think my statement was I will not help Scientology hurt or destroy one more person.

Q Now, this is a 16-page affidavit, chockful of all kinds of details. You even detailed that Mr. Minton had told you he offered Mr. Wollersheim $200,000 to try to settle that case, right?

A Correct.

Q You put that in there. But you didn’t think it was important to put in this affidavit that Mr. Minton had offered you a retire- — basically enough money so that you could retire? You didn’t think that was important?

A Well, I admit that that is something that’s

Page 1115

important here, but I did not put it there for whatever reason. I mean, you know, I put down what I put down. So if you want to give me a strike for that, okay.

Q All right. Now, you said today that — on redirect that those three resignation letters — remember the March 3rd, ’87, letters, the ones in your hand?

A Correct.

Q Right? You told Mr. Dandar on redirect that you actually executed those letters on March 3rd, 1987, right?

The ones in your hand.

A Yes.

Q And those letters were actually typed up on March 3rd of 1987, right?

A I have no idea when they were typed.

Q Isn’t that what you said on direct?

A No, I didn’t say —

Q Isn’t that what you said on redirect?

A No, I didn’t say who typed it, because I did not type this.

Q No, I didn’t say you typed them up. I said those were actually prepared, the whole letter —

THE COURT: He doesn’t know when they were typed.

MR. WEINBERG: No, that was his testimony.

THE WITNESS: No, it wasn’t.

Page 1116

THE COURT: He said that was what he executed.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q What you executed had the date on it already?

A Correct.

Q All right. So — that’s all I’m saying. In other words, the — you didn’t — you aren’t testifying that the — that the resignation letters that you signed were actually — and that, you know, had the date on it were actually prepared a long time before. That’s not what you’re saying?

A No. I made a distinction between the undated resignation that I had signed when I first assumed the position and these ones right here. And I stated why these ones were done, used, instead of the undated ones.

Q Do you remember in your affidavit — and the affidavit we’re talking about is the — that I’m talking about now is the August 1999 affidavit, which is the — the August 20th one, which is the — I call it the murder allegation —

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q — affidavit.

MR. WEINBERG: If I can approach —

THE COURT: You may.

Page 1117

MR. WEINBERG: — is probably the easiest way of doing this.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you remember that in paragraph 14 of — this is the — just so you see it, is your August 20th, 1999.

A M’hum (affirmative).

Q You see, just read paragraph 14 down to — it’s short.

A Okay.

Q Read it to yourself.

A Okay.

Q Have you seen that?

A Yes.

Q Now, what you say in this affidavit in paragraph 14 on page 6 is: “I was forcefully removed,” which is, you’ve already testified, on March 3rd. Then you say, quote: “It is my belief that my undated resignation which I signed when I was appointed to the board was then dated and used to make it appear that I had resigned when I had not.”

So the testimony that you swore to in this affidavit that all that was — that all that happened was — that what happened was that a date was put on something that you had previously signed is absolutely contrary to what you just testified in this court.

Page 1118

Correct?

A What — what I wrote there, I wrote that as my belief. I didn’t recall this, but once it was shown to me and recalled to me, I testified about it. I’m not able to recall every little thing all the time. That was my belief at the time. But then when you showed me this, I remembered more about the incident that happened in 1986.

Q ’87.

A ’87, sorry, January of ’87.

Q So you were wrong in your August 20th, 1999, sworn affidavit?

A Right. In that — in that regard, in that particular regard.

MR. WEINBERG: Now, do you have — can I ask the clerk for a document, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. WEINBERG: Plaintiff’s 15B.

I’m going to show him 15B, which is Teresa Summers’ letter.

THE COURT: For the record, you probably ought to say what you said to me.

I don’t know, did you get that, Madam Court Reporter?

THE REPORTER: Yes, ma’am, I did.

MR. WEINBERG: I guess I was speaking louder

Page 1119

than I thought.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. I’m showing you the September 7th, 2001, Teresa Summers letter. And I believe you said on redirect that you had learned about the Clambake money and the issues with regard to the Clambake money in — for the first time — or issues with regard to LMT money for the first time in Teresa Summers’ letter, right?

A Correct.

Q And this is Teresa Summers’ letter?

A Yes, it is.

Q Now, can you look at page 1 of that letter.

A Yes.

Q Paragraph 1.

A Where it says, “Please be advised”?

Q I’m sorry, where it says –subparagraph 1. Do you see where the No. 1 —

A Yes.

Q Where it says, “The revelation –” This is a letter to Stacy Brooks from Teresa Summers, right?

A Correct.

Q “The revelation in your recent deposition that 800,000 was donated to the LMT from foreign sources and that every penny of that money was delivered to Bob Minton is very difficult to make sense of. For at least the last

Page 1120

six months, I have been told by you” all of the LMT funding — I’ve been told by you that all of the LMT funding came from Bob Minton.”

Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And that’s what you were told as well, correct, that all of the LMT funding came from Bob Minton?

A No, that’s not what I was told.

Q Now, let me — will you turn to the next-to-last page, please. The last paragraph of the next-to-last page, the one that says “in addition”?

A Yes.

Q Do you see that? Summers says: “In addition, Bob and Jesse were involved with bringing money into the country illegally, and you have never discussed this matter with me.”

A Yes.

Q Do you know what she’s talking about?

A No. And she doesn’t either. I never brought any money into the country illegally.

Q And Ms. Summers is someone that’s worked at the LMT?

A Correct. I can tell you what Ms. Summers is referring to, if you’d like to know.

THE COURT: It doesn’t matter.

Page 1121

THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Doesn’t matter.

THE COURT: I have no idea why he bothered to bring that out. Maybe he wanted you to look bad or something.

THE WITNESS: Well . . .

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. Now, finally, you testified on redirect that the — you testified about the release that you executed with Mr. Rathbun at the end of October, the beginning of November, 1992. Do you remember that testimony?

A In November of 1992, I was not in the Sea Org. I was in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Q What I’m asking you is, Do you recall on redirect you testified about the release that you executed at the time that you left the Church of Scientology?

A Correct.

Q All right. And your testimony is that you were under duress when you did that. Correct?

A Absolutely, yes.

Q And you executed it in a meeting — in a meeting with Mr. Rathbun, right?

A Correct.

Q Just you and Mr. Rathbun?

Page 1122

A No. There were other staff there.

Q Do you remember who else was there?

A I believe Mr. Sutter was there.

Q They were sitting — you were sitting in a meeting with him?

A If I say he’s there, that means that I can see him. That means we’re in the same room or something like that, you know?

Q So you’re saying he was there?

A Correct.

Q Okay. Well, let me show you two — and then it’s your testimony that, at the end, Mr. Rathbun made you put the wrong date on the release. Right? That was your testimony?

A It was convenient for them to have it as November, as opposed to October. I don’t know why. That’s what I —

Q But it was his origination, not yours?

A Correct.

Q Okay. I’m going to play you a short clip from the beginning of this meeting with Mr. Rathbun and then the end of the meeting with Mr. Rathbun.

A You know, I resent that unless you show the whole thing.

THE COURT: I think that’s fair. If you’re

Page 1123

going to show something and suggest whether he was or wasn’t under duress, you have to play the whole meeting.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s a long meeting. When I have is the clip, and, you know, we can provide the whole thing if you want it. But what I intend to do on this redirect is to show him the beginning of the meeting, which would indicate he was in the meeting, and the end of the meeting where he signs the —

MR. RATHBUN: Okay. This is Marty Rathbun with Jesse Prince. And Jesse is going out of the Sea Org, and he agreed to have a —

(The playback was interrupted.)

THE COURT: Where is Jesse Prince?

MR. WEINBERG: He’s at the front.

(Continuing with tape.)

MR. RATHBUN: — knowledge that he might have about outstanding —

(The playback was stopped.)

MR. DANDAR: Does Mr. Prince know he’s being videotaped?

Page 1124

THE WITNESS: No.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, you knew the meeting was recorded. A Not videotaped. And this is the first time I’ve seen this, and this is really gross. This is from a hidden camera.

Q Did you know it was being recorded or not?

A On tape. A tape recording was running, not a video.

Q Is this you?

A Yes, it is. I think it is.

THE COURT: Doesn’t look — I’m sorry, it doesn’t look like him.

THE WITNESS: Let me see. They’re full of tricks.

MR. DANDAR: Yes, why don’t you see.

THE WITNESS: I can’t tell.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, when you hear your voice, I think you can tell.

THE COURT: It does not look like Mr. Prince to me.

THE WITNESS: You know, I really resent this. This is secret. Taping this is exactly what I’ve been saying here. This is exactly what they do, the illegal surveillance. It’s just sneaky all the

Page 1125

time.

MR. WEINBERG: I asked him the question, Did you know you were being recorded?

THE COURT: He said no.

MR. WEINBERG: The answer is yes. I think he said yes.

THE COURT: He knew there was a tape recorder playing. He did not know he was being videotaped.

MR. WEINBERG: I guess the question, your Honor, is once you know that —

THE COURT: Quite frankly, I would resent the tar out of it. I hope there’s none of that going on ever. If you’re going to ever take a picture of me, you’d better tell me, because I would resent the tar out of it, to say nothing of the fact that I’m not certain it’s legal.

So whatever it is, Mr. Prince, you didn’t know anything about this?

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. They did not have my permission to do this.

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: This is from a hidden, secret camera.

THE COURT: Go ahead and play it. We’ll

Page 1126

decide whether or not it’s legal or not.

(The playback continued.)

MR. RATHBUN: — cases going on or other matters that are involved, illegal or whatever.

MR. PRINCE: That’s right (unintelligible).

MR. RATHBUN: We’re here alone?

MR. PRINCE: That’s right.

MR. RATHBUN: Nobody else here?

MR. PRINCE: No coercion, nobody doing anything.

MR. RATHBUN: Okay. And you’re here of your own free will?

MR. PRINCE: That’s right.

MR. RATHBUN: There’s no — nobody is holding anything over your head?

MR. PRINCE: Yes.

MR. RATHBUN: There’s no threat?

MR. PRINCE: No threat, no pressure. I know exactly what I’m doing. I’m not sitting here (unintelligible) worrying about legal counsel knowing what the hell is going on. I know exactly what I’m doing in a professional capacity.

MR. RATHBUN: Great. Okay. The first thing we’re going to do was you’ve reviewed a couple of outstanding complaints, which were the RICO case,

Page 1127

which is our —

(The playback was interrupted.)

THE WITNESS: You know, I can’t hardly stand this. I can hardly stand this.

MR. WEINBERG: I was going to play the end of it.

THE COURT: Well, how in the world can you play something that suggested somebody wasn’t under coercion and not play it? How do I know —

MR. WEINBERG: If we can — we can play the whole —

THE COURT: This is the RICO case? What is your purpose in playing it?

MR. WEINBERG: Mr. Prince — Mr. Prince said that there were all kinds of people in the room, that he was being coerced, that it was forced. And there are no people.

THE WITNESS: They left the room.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me.

THE WITNESS: They had left the room. This was totally staged, to protect the Church, as I’ve given testimony before: Mr. Prince, this is what you need to do to leave our compound.

So I’m sitting here doing whatever they asked me to do to leave their compound. There’s been

Page 1128

articles in George magazine, press — Riverside Press, and my suit about the coercion. So, you know, and now you’re showing me a secret camera thing? I resent this highly. I really resent this.

MR. DANDAR: We object. And for the record, that sure doesn’t look like Mr. Prince.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, you know that’s you.

You’ve heard you.

THE WITNESS: Look, I resent this because it was done — not only did everybody leave the room —

THE COURT: You mean there were others there before this started?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Absolutely. They were all standing around in that room. And then it’s like, “Okay, now, let’s get this extra protection in.”

Signing a release for your client wasn’t enough. Signing a release saying that they didn’t harm me or damage me wasn’t enough for them. Now they’ve got to sit down and do this. You know? I really think anybody with common sense knows what’s going on here.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q When did you sign it? The beginning of the meeting or the end of the meeting?

A What, the release?

Page 1129

Q Yes.

A Probably at the end. I mean, they wanted me to — this is what I had to do to leave. I had been locked up —

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I had to escape from Scientology. They didn’t even know where I went.

THE COURT: I don’t want to hear it anymore.

If he didn’t know about it, I don’t want to see it.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. That’s all my questions.

THE COURT: As far as I’m concerned, it can be stricken.

MR. WEINBERG: Those are all my questions.

THE COURT: All right.

FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, do you have that affidavit that’s —

THE COURT: And I might suggest in the future, if you’re going to videotape parishioners, that they be told about it. Quite frankly, that is not very churchly, to be candid.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, your Honor, just to be clear, it is the Church’s position that Mr. Prince absolutely knew this was being taped and the videotape introductory section of this before the interview

Page 1130

starts shows them setting up electronic equipment.

And it’s his testimony here that he didn’t know about it. That is not — we do not go along with that. I want the record to reflect that.

THE COURT: It’s very odd that someone leaving a Church has to be videotaped.

The truth is, it’s very odd he would have to sign a release. I mean, it’s all very odd.

However, it’s just my suggestion to you so that you don’t ever have to listen to somebody again that you might just want to put it in your release, “I understand that I’m being videotaped as I sign this.”

Then you won’t have to worry about it. I won’t have to hear somebody saying that he resents you taking my picture, for whatever reason.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this comes from —

THE COURT: I don’t want to hear any more about it.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: Go on ahead.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, I want to direct your attention to paragraph —

THE COURT: I didn’t have to sign a release when I left my church, quite frankly. I left, I went

Page 1131

back, who cared?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Paragraph 15 of your —

THE COURT: Nobody ever sued me either. I never testified against them.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Paragraph 15 of your April 2002 affidavit, paragraph 15 — I don’t have the page numbers on my copy for some strange reason. But the second page of paragraph 15, could you please read the highlighted portion on — beginning —

THE COURT: Which affidavit is this now?

MR. DANDAR: The April 2002.

THE WITNESS: May 1st.

THE COURT: Okay.

A “Bob told me that I was the one making a big mistake, that if I walked down this road with them, they would hire an attorney for me and everything would be okay. Both he and Stacy Brooks told me of a new life, where we would all live in happiness and prosperity.”

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What were the details of living a new life in happiness and prosperity?

A Retired, vacationing on the Islands regularly, running around the world, world travel.

Page 1132

Q When you — did the —

THE COURT: What paragraph was that?

MR. DANDAR: It was paragraph 15. If I had the exhibit, I could give you the page number.

THE COURT: It’s all right, paragraph 15.

MR. DANDAR: It’s the second page of paragraph 15. It’s a real long paragraph. It’s lines 19 through 22.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: And this wasn’t part of the recross of Mr. Weinberg, so if it’s objected to, I understand. But —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I’ll object in advance.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, when Teresita went insane or psychotic, did she do it like Lisa did, in the middle of the street, in public, or somewhere else?

A She did it — she was at a work station — oh, god, we were in a big time crunch. We were making the first —

THE COURT: We really don’t care about that. Was it out in public or at work?

THE WITNESS: No, it was at work.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So there was no public PR flap?

Page 1133

A Correct.

MR. DANDAR: And outside of wanting to play this videotape, that’s all the questions I have.

THE COURT: Okay. Anything further?

Thank you, sir.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Your testimony is finished. You may step down.

I don’t know about that videotape either. I have no idea what that is either. So you find whatever it is you want to find, show it to counsel in advance, see what it is, and see if we can make some context out of it and see if it has any relevance.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: All right. Now, it’s noontime.

It’s 12:05. We’ll be in recess until 1:15.

MR. WEINBERG: How about 1:30?

THE COURT: No, 1:15.

MR. WEINBERG: Or 1 o’clock?

THE COURT: No, 1:15.

MR. WEINBERG: 1:15, all right.

(A lunch recess was taken at 12:08 p.m.)

_______________________________

Page 1134

STATE OF FLORIDA

COUNTY OF PINELLAS

I, Debra S. (Laughbaum) Turner, Registered Diplomate Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true record.

WITNESS MY HAND this 11th day of July, 2002, at St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida.

Q Now, Mr. Prince, you said earlier today — we got into this conversation — that you didn’t know until it was too late basically, in March of 1987, that RTC had trustees.

That is what you said, right?

A Or the role of the trustees, how that operated corporately. Yes, Mr. Weinberg.

Q And you didn’t know, until the day you were demoted, that David Miscavige was one of those trustees. You didn’t know that, either?

A Again, I didn’t know the role of a trustee, what they did. I didn’t have the — the idea of what they did. Correct, Mr. Weinberg.

Q Well, let me show you a couple of documents that we’ll have the reporter mark — reporter, the clerk.

MR. WEINBERG: This is our next document.

THE CLERK: 229.

MR. WEINBERG: This, your Honor, is 229.

And this one would be 230, right?

THE CLERK: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: This, your Honor, is 230.

874

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince, this is 229. The thick one is 230.

A Okay. Is this stuff that I keep later?

Q Yes, we can just keep it here for the moment, and then if there is any originals — there is one —

THE COURT: If there are any copies, you can keep them, or give them to Mr. Dandar, or —

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll return these exhibits back to the clerk.

THE COURT: If they’re originals, you need to be sure they get back to the clerk.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

MR. WEINBERG: Before I forget, let me return these exhibits for some reason I took.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right, now if you’ll look at 229, Mr. Prince —

A Is that this one right here?

Q That is the short run, Unanimous Written Consent of the Directors and Trustees of the Religion Technology Center.

A Yes.

Q Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And you see you executed that document as a

875

director?

A Yes. Yes, sir, I see my signature on there.

Q You see the three trustees executed that document as trustees, Lyman Spurlock, David Miscavige, and can you read the last one?

A Mmm, David Miscavige is the last one, isn’t it?

Q I think it is the second one.

A The second one is I think looks like Starkey.

Q David Miscavige is the last one. Do you know who the second one is?

A Norman Starkey. And the first one is Lyman Spurlock, I believe.

Q So certainly at that point in time you must have been aware there were trustees?

A Mr. Weinberg, I’m going to say this and it may sound incredible, but as a director, at least in this corporation, Mr. McShane was actually the secretary. I would often sign things because it was required to be signed.

You know, this isn’t anything that we all signed simultaneously. This could have been given to me and Vicki signs it, Jesse signs it, Warren signs it, send it along to OSA, then they sign it.

Q You were familiar, as director, as you said, the number two guy in RTC, you were familiar with the bylaws of the Religious Technology Center, correct?

876

A You know, I wouldn’t say so.

Q Well, can you pick those bylaws up, please?

A Yes, I can.

Q What is the exhibit number on that?

A Mine doesn’t have an exhibit number.

THE COURT: 230.

MR. WEINBERG: 230?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And do you see that if you go to the last page, it is dated June 15, 1982?

A Yes.

Q All right. If you go to —

MR. WEINBERG: In fact, if I can approach the witness it will be easier.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q — Article 6, Section 1 —

A Where am I?

Q Article 6, Section 1.

A That is Article 7, so this must be Article 6 right here. Section 7 — what section number?

Q Article 6, Section 1. Right here.

A All right.

Q See that?

A Yes.

877

Q And that is trustees. You see that?

A Uh-huh. Yes.

Q And you see that the bylaws of the organization that you say you were number two in says, and I quote:

“The sole purpose of the board of trustees shall be to elect directors of the corporation. In furtherance of this purpose, the trustees may remove a director who fails to meet the qualifications of a director or who conducts himself in a manner which is contrary to the provisions of Article 1 through 4 of these bylaws and the survival of Scientology. In addition, the trustees shall have the power to change the trustees.”

Isn’t that exactly what happened in March of 1987, that you and Vicki Aznaran were removed by the trustees pursuant to the bylaws of the RTC because you-all had failed to meet the qualifications of a director because you conducted yourself in a manner that was contrary to these bylaws and the survival of Scientology because you had been part of an out-tech operation?

A Is that a question?

THE COURT: That was awfully —

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Break that down.

A My signature isn’t on here, by the way, as a director on these bylaws.

878

But these bylaws are signed by Steven Marlowe, Laura Marlowe and someone else.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Right, because in 1982 you weren’t a director, you became a director after 1982.

A That is correct.

Q And I assume when you became director, you said you had all this responsibility, you must have — must have familiarized yourself with what the purpose, as set forth in the bylaws and articles of incorporation of the organization that you were part of, was.

A Well, that, in itself, would be an assumption that would have to be ratified by my testimony. And my testimony is, is that I have never been a person that was legal-minded and really understood corporate and bylaws and things like that. I just wasn’t.

THE COURT: Did you ever read this document?

THE WITNESS: I can’t say that I have.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q But you —

A My signature is not on any part of this.

Q You understand now, after having seen this document, seen Title 6, you understand that you were removed in March of 1987 pursuant to the bylaws of RTC by the trustees as a result of your misconduct? You understand

879

that now, don’t you?

A No. No.

THE COURT: He already testified why he believes he was removed. It would not be consistent with this.

Obviously, the directors, if they were here, would testify differently that it was pursuant to this.

MR. WEINBERG: The trustees.

THE COURT: The trustees.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince, you can put that down.

A Okay.

Q Now —

THE COURT: I mean, I guess pursuant to your question as to wasn’t this true and wasn’t that true where he said no, that was coming from somewhere.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: So I assume — that would have been what somebody else might have said, but he disagrees with that.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you testified on direct that as soon as — as it became known that you were now going to work against

880

Scientology, that you were threatened by Elliot Abelson, the lawyer, is that what you said?

A I said I received a letter threatening to sue me from Mr. Elliot Abelson.

Q And — and you understood from receiving that letter that the problem was that you had signed a release upon your departure from Scientology — from the Sea Org in 1992, among other things promising not to — to work against the Church of Scientology, or something to that effect?

A I would have to see that, if you —

Q Okay.

A — have it here.

MR. WEINBERG: Let me have a couple of things marked, your Honor.

Your Honor, here is 231. It is one exhibit.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q This whole package is 231, Mr. Prince.

A Okay, thank you.

Q Now, do you see Exhibit 231, Mr. Prince?

A I’m looking at it right now, Mr. Weinberg.

MR. WEINBERG: While he’s looking at it, your Honor, I’ll mark as 232 the following document.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q That is 232.

A Okay.

881

Q Have you had a chance to look at 231?

A Yes.

Q All right. And is that the correspondence that you remember getting from Mr. Abelson?

A Yes.

Q And that includes a letter that — which is the second page — sent by hand-delivery to you in Minneapolis on July 24, 1998 from Mr. Abelson, along with a copy of the release. And then the first page is a letter of that same date to you in care of Leipold, Donahue & Shipe, do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And is this the full extent of the communications between you and the Church of Scientology, Mr. Abelson, at that time in July of 1998 with regard to whether or not you could or would be a witness?

A Mmm, no. As I worked — I mean — I mean, I had private investigators actually trying to stop me on the street to hand me this letter.

Q I’m just asking you about any other communications with Mr. Abelson.

A With Mr. Abelson? Not that I recall specifically.

Q Then am I correct that you got Mr. Leipold, who you were already working with, I guess, at the time, to file a lawsuit?

882

A Correct.

Q And that is Exhibit —

MR. WEINBERG: What did I say? The lawsuit?

MR. DANDAR: 232.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And that is Exhibit 232 in front of you, correct?

A Yes.

Q And that was a lawsuit filed on your behalf in — that was filed — date filed August 6, 1998 in Superior Court in California seeking to declare the release, which is one which is attached to that first exhibit, not valid as it pertained to your testimony. Is that right?

A You know, I’m sorry, Mr. Weinberg, I’m a little tired. But, you know, the question gets long. Then I don’t know what I’m supposed to be answering.

Q The purpose of this was to try to allow you to work in cases against the Church of Scientology?

A No. Not at all.

THE COURT: A dec action normally just to declare the rights of the parties.

MR. WEINBERG: That was my first question. And I tried to make it simpler.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I mean, you were asking the Court to declare that the release did not prohibit you from testifying?

883

A If that is what this says, yes.

Q Okay. And this case never — it just lay — you never prosecuted this case. Is that right?

A No, I never pursued it.

Q And the Church of Scientology didn’t — didn’t file any lawsuit against you?

A No.

Q And that release that was attached is the release that you were talking about that you signed in 1992, is that right?

A Under extreme duress, yes.

Q The extreme — did you sign it on the day that you left?

A I signed it on the 31st of October. But for whatever reason, Mr. Rathbun thought it would be more appropriate to make it November. So he wrote “November 1st” here.

But the actual date that I left that I was taken to the airport by the Scientology security official was the 31st of October.

Q Was it late at night that you signed it?

A No. But it was in the evening.

Q All right. Does it make a difference whether it is November 1st or October 31st?

A It makes a difference as far as accuracy is concerned.

884

Q And on this same day, you were — you talked to Mr. Rathbun in — in a recorded conversation?

A Yes.

Q And were you under any duress?

A Extreme duress, as is laid out in this complaint.

Q Did he threaten you during the conversation on the 31st?

A I was way past being threatened.

Q That was a simple question. Did he threaten you during the conversation that was recorded on the 31st?

A I don’t know. I would have to listen to it again.

Q Do you remember being threatened?

A No, I do not.

Q When you say duress, what are you talking about?

A Well —

THE COURT: He already talked about it throughout his testimony as to the whole schmear.

MR. WEINBERG: This is the last day when he decided to walk out.

THE COURT: I understand that, Counselor. But he already testified as to how he felt threatened and how he felt coerced and all that and how it came about.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: All this long tenure. But if you

885

are specifically asking about right before he signed is —

MR. WEINBERG: That is what I’m asking.

THE COURT: But don’t suggest that is all he’s talking about because he talked about —

MR. WEINBERG: No. No, I’m talking about on the 31st when this was recorded.

A I’ll give you a simple statement. Unless I signed this, I would have been — remained a captive. Unless I did this, I would have remained incarcerated by Scientology.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, the first time that you — in 1987 when you went into the RPF, you actually walked out on your own, didn’t you?

A What do you mean?

Q Well, you have testified about it. You actually left the RPF and went into town, checked into a hotel —

A Escaped. I escaped. It just wasn’t walking. No. I escaped. And some Indians from the Soboba Springs Reservation put me in a truck and drove me to bingo hall so I could call the police. No, I escaped. I ran away from that place.

Q So you didn’t see Mr. Rathbun or anybody like that who paid for a hotel?

A Oh, they caught me on the road walking.

886

Q And they took you into town?

A Yeah.

Q So —

A In the back of a truck.

Q They didn’t take you back to the RPF?

A I wasn’t going to go back to the RPF. I made that clear. I told them if they wanted to speak with me or continue any kind of dialogue with me, it would be on my terms and not on their terms and — no longer on their terms.

That if they wanted to talk to me, I would sit still in a place a while.

So they went and paid for a hotel. I went and got a car, drove straight back to the RPF and got Vicki Aznaran out of there. Vicki Aznaran didn’t want to be there, either.

Q And they let her go, too?

A No. They had no choice.

Q What do you mean, they had no choice?

A I came in there with a car, driving up their dirt road so fast. I knew exactly where she was. As soon as I went in there, I grabbed her, put her in that car and we zoomed out the gate.

Q But the first time when you left, Mr. Rathbun picked you up on the road, and instead of taking you back to the RPF, he took you to a hotel in town and paid for a hotel

887

room?

A At my demand, yes.

Q Well, if you are a prisoner, what right do you have to demand anything?

A Because I’m in the public now. You see, I’m in the open now. I’m not in Scientology’s closed system where they can do whatever they want to and people can’t see. Now I’m out on the public road with public cars passing

by. And that affords — afforded some protection because it was a PR flap.

For me to be out there, a disgruntled staff member, extremely disgruntled staff member, leaving for my life, my God, I’m walking through the desert, it is 110 degrees, that is the reason why.

I told them, “I’m going straight to the police, straight to the press. I’m sick of you people.”

Q This is in 1987?

A Correct.

Q Then after a week or two or three or whatever it was, you then voluntarily went back to the RPF?

A No.

Q From the public?

A Mmm, Mr. Weiner (sic), you know on direct we covered this quite well, and I explained the whole situation about my wife, you know, how they wanted to split my wife

888

and I, I didn’t want to be split with her, I stayed there an extra five years until she came to. You know, I have that same testimony today.

Q One simple question. No one drug you back.

A Correct.

Q Now, you testified that — I think that you were shocked about private investigators and how a private investigator has been running around. I mean, I think —

THE COURT: Shocked? I don’t recall him being shocked.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q How do you recall it?

A Annoyed. Kind of surprised.

Q Now, after you left the Church of Scientology in 1992, you actually became trained and worked in Texas as a private investigator, didn’t you?

You were certified?

A Correct.

Q And the person that trained you was Rick Aznaran, who had years before left the Church of Scientology?

A In 1989, I think — no, it was five years prior to me leaving. So, yes.

Q How long did you work as a private investigator?

A Oh, probably maybe — maybe four months, five months.

Q Now, let’s go to your August 1999 affidavit.

889

A Okay.

Q You are familiar with that affidavit, obviously. Right?

A Well, Mr. Weinberg, if we’re going to go through and do the word games with it, I certainly need to have it present in front of me.

MR. DANDAR: I might have it.

THE COURT: Which affidavit is this?

MR. WEINBERG: This is the one that the hearing is about, basically.

THE COURT: Oh.

MR. DANDAR: I take that back. I thought I had it.

MR. WEINBERG: Do you have a copy of it?

THE COURT: Did you say this was the one dated the 1st of May of —

MR. WEINBERG: No. No. When I said the hearing, this is the August 20, 1999 affidavit, the one where the murder allegation was made.

THE COURT: I thought you said about this hearing.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, you know, it is the —

THE COURT: What number is that, Madam Clerk?

Could I have that? I don’t have it up here.

MR. DANDAR: I’ll object. There was no murder

890

allegation in the affidavit.

THE COURT: The objection is on the record.

We’ll deal with — the affidavit says whatever it says.

MR. DANDAR: It says what it says.

THE COURT: It says what it says.

MR. DANDAR: I just can’t find my copy.

THE COURT: This one, is this 108 or something like that?

MR. DANDAR: It is very possible.

THE COURT: Madam Clerk, look for 108, see what that is.

THE CLERK: Defense 108 or —

THE COURT: Oh, I don’t know.

MR. FUGATE: It is not 108, Judge.

THE COURT: No, that is not it.

MR. WEINBERG: Judge, I have one that I don’t think have any highlights on it — well, one highlight, nothing much.

THE COURT: That is all right, I don’t mind the highlights.

MR. WEINBERG: I can’t even find the one that did have highlights.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you have one, Mr. Prince?

891

A No, I do not.

Q Okay, I have another one.

THE COURT: This is in evidence or else it is attached to the response.

MR. DANDAR: And we would like it to be considered as evidence in this hearing.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, it needs to then be admitted — it hasn’t been admitted. Do you want to admit it as the defense next exhibit?

MR. DANDAR: That is fine.

MR. WEINBERG: How about plaintiff’s next exhibit?

MR. DANDAR: Or it could be a joint exhibit.

MR. WEINBERG: Frankly —

THE COURT: Make it your exhibit, Mr. Dandar.

MR. DANDAR: As well as the April 2002 exhibit of Mr. Prince which is also filed.

MR. WEINBERG: I am not to that one yet. Why don’t we start with this one?

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: I think — are these the exhibits to it?

THE COURT: I don’t know that —

MR. WEINBERG: Yours don’t have it but it is just —

892

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I actually —

THE COURT: I don’t know what that is. Was it attached to his affidavit?

MR. WEINBERG: Apparently so.

THE COURT: Let me see it.

MR. DANDAR: It is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 126.

Yes, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 126.

THE COURT: Do you remember, Mr. Dandar, whether there were any attachments to his? I honestly don’t remember attachments, at least I wasn’t given — in the copy I was given. It doesn’t mean there weren’t some.

MR. DANDAR: My copy with me today has nothing attached to it. But —

THE COURT: Well, let’s just look, because if there are no attachments to it, then you need not —

MR. WEINBERG: This wouldn’t be something we want in, anyway. These are not attachments. But I think we’ll probably find that he refers to some in here somewhere.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

MR. WEINBERG: Judge, why don’t we do this. I marked one without the attachments. Why don’t we just mark it without the attachments?

THE COURT: Okay.

893

MR. WEINBERG: Then we won’t have —

THE COURT: That will be plaintiff’s next in order.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: There will be no attachments. If you later find out there are attachments with it —

MR. WEINBERG: He already put into evidence the — with the motions —

MR. DANDAR: It is already in as 126 of the plaintiff.

THE COURT: 126?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: It is already in?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Then we don’t need it in again, Counsel. Number 126.

MR. WEINBERG: But it doesn’t have attachments.

THE COURT: I’ll just use this one and give it back to you when we’re done. Whoops, now I have two of them.

MR. WEINBERG: I know, because I had given you one with attachments and one without.

THE COURT: I’ll use them. And when I’m done, I’ll give them both back to you.

THE WITNESS: Mr. Weinberg, I would like a

894

copy, as well.

THE COURT: Here. Take mine, the extra.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: Now, Mr. Prince, did I give you Pages 1 through 18?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q First of all, take a look at that affidavit. And go to the last page. And that is an affidavit that you executed on August 20, 1999, is that right?

A Correct.

Q And you executed it in Mr. Dandar’s office?

A Correct.

Q Now, you can put the affidavit down. I have some questions first.

A Okay.

Q You had, as of August 20, 1999, no personal knowledge as to what occurred in 1995 with regard to Lisa McPherson at the Ft. Harrison Hotel. Correct?

A Correct.

Q You had — at that time you’d been out of Scientology, out of a — sorry, by that time you’d been out of an executive position at Scientology for — since 1987?

A Correct.

895

Q You were not at the Ft. Harrison Hotel in 1995.

Correct?

A Correct.

Q You never spoke to anybody that was with Lisa McPherson while she was at the hotel in 1995. Correct?

A Well, let me think about that.

Q As of the time you executed your affidavit?

A Oh, not that I recall.

Q Okay. You had — at the time that you executed your affidavit in August of 1999, you had no knowledge — no personal knowledge as to what David Miscavige was doing or where he was from November 18, 1995 through December 5, 1995. Correct?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Yes, that is true?

THE WITNESS: Yes, that is true.

THE COURT: Okay. Now we are in important areas so I want the record to be clear on things like that.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, yet you opined in your affidavit —

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me one second. (Short pause.)

896

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q If you go to Page 17.

A Okay.

Q You opined in your affidavit, in Paragraph 44, that:

“Lisa McPherson was held against her will in isolation. And when she did not respond to Scientology technical handling, Flag, on orders from David Miscavige, Ray Mithoff and Marty Rathbun, sat mute and watched her die after she no longer had the strength to fight for her freedom. Her death was no accident. It was a chosen option to minimize a public relations flap.”

That is what you said, correct?

A Correct.

Q At the time you said that, you did not have a shred — you did not have a piece of evidence indicating — indicating that in November and December of 1995 that either Mr. Mithoff or Mr. Rathbun or Mr. Miscavige had done one thing with regard to Lisa McPherson. Correct?

A Mmm, correct. I — you labeled this as my opinion, I think. You said I opined about these and this is what I did.

“Yet from the available records, it is apparent to me that these three individuals, Mithoff, Rathbun and Miscavige, had no

897

option other than to permit her to die in isolation, rather than to take her to the hospital for emergency medical treatment and risk embarrassing questions from the attending physician, press and authorities, with likely claims of imprisonment and abuse being made by Lisa McPherson upon her recovery.”

You said that. Right?

A Correct.

Q And — but when you said that, you didn’t have a shred of evidence that indicated that Mr. Mithoff, Mr. Rathbun or Mr. Miscavige made a decision to let her die.

Correct?

A This was my opinion, based on experience.

Q You didn’t have any evidence, did you?

A I had no physical evidence, no.

THE COURT: Could I ask him a question here?

MR. WEINBERG: Sure.

THE COURT: I hate to interrupt. At that time, at the time you wrote this, had the doctors, more particularly, Dr. — I can’t even think of his name now.

MR. DANDAR: Spitz.

THE COURT: — Spitz, had he been deposed yet?

Do you know, Mr. Prince?

THE WITNESS: I do not recall, your Honor.

898

THE COURT: In other words, this was before you had the medical testimony?

THE WITNESS: Mmm, I wouldn’t say that, either, no. I — I’m not sure about that, either. I know I have read medical testimony from Mr. Dandar’s experts concerning what —

THE COURT: Do you know whether you had knowledge of what that testimony — I mean, I have to presume you and Mr. Dandar, as his consultant, discussed what he knew, what you knew.

THE WITNESS: Sure.

THE COURT: But do you know whether or not you knew about the medical doctors before you wrote your affidavit, or not?

THE WITNESS: I — as I sit here today, your Honor, I don’t know.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q But you did know that the Church of Scientology had been charged criminally at this point. Right?

A Yes.

Q You were aware of what the medical examiner had said, correct? The autopsy report, all of the controversy? I mean, you were aware of all of that?

A Yes.

899

Q Now, you knew that by making an allegation like you did in your affidavit in August of 1999, that David Miscavige, the leader of the Church of Scientology, was part of an intentional decision to allow a fellow Scientologist who was on a religious program, introspection rundown, to die. You knew that making an allegation like that would — would be — would bring very negative press and very negative reactions from the Church. Correct?

A You know, Mr. Weinberg, I don’t know which part of that diatribe to respond to.

THE COURT: It wasn’t a diatribe. He said did you know that this would bring very negative reactions from the Church?

THE WITNESS: I mean, that was not in my awareness. That was not part of my thought process when I executed this document here. My thought process, in executing this document, is after reviewing the preclear folders, reviewing the caretaker notes, reviewing what other information that was available, which I had studied for months — you see, you say she was on the introspection rundown, yet your client cannot produce one sheet of paper —

THE COURT: See, you are well, well past —

THE WITNESS: Okay.

900

THE COURT: This question is real simple. His question was did you know, when you executed this affidavit, that this would cause negative reaction — I can’t remember what word you used — negative reaction from the Church?

THE WITNESS: Right. That was not in my conscious — consciousness to create that, you know, or — or — I mean I don’t think this ever appeared in the newspaper or — or anything like that. I mean, as far as public relations is concerned, I think this is a document that is held within this courtroom.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q No. It just appeared in a lawsuit that that document was the basis for that accused the Church of Scientology, specifically its leader, David Miscavige, of murder. It appeared in that. Right?

A I prepared this — this affidavit for this case.

Q Right. And that affidavit was the — was the principal piece of evidence that was used to seek the fifth amended complaint that made it very clear that there was a murder allegation against David Miscavige, among others. Correct?

A You know, you’re asking me to do — or to comment upon work that was actually Mr. Dandar’s work. Mr. Dandar

901

simply asked me, “What do you think happened with Lisa McPherson? Based on everything that you have read, what do you think happened to her?” Then we went, “Well, why do you think it happened to her? Well, can you show me? Can you tell me?”

And after we went through that process, I went over this many times because he was like, “Are you sure? Are you sure?” I said, “Look, this is the way it works here. I was here. I know how it works. I have seen this in operation.” You know, I’m not —

THE COURT: Mr. Prince, you are going on and on. And the long and short of it is you testified on direct examination, in response to questions either from your lawyer — or I should not say your lawyer, either from the person to whom you consult with or from me, that you’d never seen an end cycle ordered by David Miscavige —

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: — other than on a terminally ill person.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: So the long and short of it is you really didn’t have any experience for these particular serious allegations, did you?

902

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did, your Honor. And I think with the first part of my testimony, when you see the pattern of the conduct of this organization in that it is not below them to do something illegal, it is not below them to put themselves before an individual, it is —

THE COURT: Well, then it was just speculative on your part. This is one of a number of possibilities that could have happened?

THE WITNESS: Right. Exactly.

THE COURT: This just happened to be the only one you mentioned?

THE WITNESS: Well, this is the only one I believe did happen.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Okay?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You knew — at the time you executed this affidavit that was the basis for the fifth amended complaint, you knew that there was no policy, no written policy, in the Church of Scientology with regard to killing someone who was on an introspection rundown. You knew that, didn’t you?

A Basically — no, there is no policy to kill people. There is nothing in the policy to kill people that

903

I know of.

Q Okay. And you have said many, many times over the course of this litigation if it isn’t written, it isn’t so. Correct?

That it is — it is all in writing, it is all written down, as far as Scientology policy. Correct?

A As far as Scientology policy is concerned, that is something that they say.

Q All right. Now, you had been — you had one experience with the introspection rundown where you actually were on an introspection rundown watching someone. That is Teresita. Correct?

A Correct.

Q And Ms. Brooks was on that same introspection rundown. Right?

A For a short period of time, yes.

Q And in that — and that went over the course of a month or so?

A A couple months.

Q A couple of months?

A Yes.

Q And people were with Teresita around the clock?

A Primarily myself was with her around the clock. But, you know, her being a young woman, sometimes she would need help going to the bathroom or, you know, cleaning herself up. That is when the girls would come, like Stacy

904

and another girl would help.

Q And part of 0 and 00 of the introspection rundown is the isolation part, right, which is what this watch was, and also getting food and — and nutrition so you can start auditing, try to get out of the psychotic state.

Correct?

A Almost correct. But the auditing pretty much happens immediately after the person has had a period of time asleep, such as eight hours, the auditing is immediately started.

Q If someone is still psychotic, in other words, out of their mind, not — not in present time, they can’t get audited, can they?

A Well, you know — no. You can audit an unconscious person. There are auditing processes where you can actually audit an unconscious person.

Q You didn’t receive an order to let Teresita die, did you?

A No. I did not.

Q No one received an order to let Teresita die?

A No.

Q Teresita was a staff member —

A Correct.

Q — who had a psychotic break, apparently.

Correct?

A You know —

905

Q Can you just answer that question?

A Okay, I am going to answer. But, you know, you talk about psychotic break. And again, you know, what are we talking about here?

THE COURT: We’re talking about somebody that barks like a dog, which is what you said she did.

That is somebody that had a psychotic break.

THE WITNESS: Yes. Okay. Am I qualified to do a medical diagnosis? I don’t think so.

THE COURT: No, but we are all qualified in this room to know that somebody that is barking like a dog had something go wrong. And it is usually psychotic. Fair enough?

THE WITNESS: Is it temporary? Does it go on for weeks? Does it just happen for an hour? I mean, what are we talking about?

THE COURT: Let him ask his question and let him answer and we’ll all make our assumptions when it is over.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. What I’m talking about, when you were with her most of the time, you saw to it that she ate and that she drank. Correct?

A Correct.

Q And you — I think you have said in testimony,

906

whether it is — I think it was your affidavit, this affidavit that we’re looking at, 126, that at one point you thought that she was — was going to die, I think you said. Correct?

A Correct.

Q Because you were concerned that she wasn’t getting enough to drink or enough to eat?

A No. That is not why I thought she was going to die. I thought she was going to die because she couldn’t sleep.

Q And you —

THE COURT: Maybe you can show me where you are, because this is a long affidavit. I don’t remember where this part of it was.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I’ll show you. It is Page 13.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Paragraph 31.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Read that out loud, Mr. Prince. It is one sentence.

A I’m sorry. What is it?

Q Page 13, Paragraph 31.

A Uh-huh.

Q Can you read that out loud?

907

A “If I had not forcibly made her drink water, I am positive that, based upon my own observation, she would have died.”

Q So you were concerned that she was going to die if you didn’t force her or make her drink water. That is what you said under oath in this August 1999 affidavit. Correct?

A Yes, Mr. Weinberg. But if you go to Number 29 of the same affidavit, I also mention the fact that I was afraid she was going to die because she could not sleep.

Q Okay.

THE COURT: He also said she had a — you also said she had a psychotic break, didn’t you?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I did.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. But the point is, Mr. Prince, is that you took it upon yourself to help her get through this. Correct?

A Yes.

Q So did Stacy Brooks?

A For a short time.

Q So did a number of other people that were there. Correct?

A Yes.

Q And you got an award for it?

A No, I didn’t.

908

Q You got recognized for it?

A No, I didn’t.

Q You didn’t?

A Come on.

MR. WEINBERG: Could I just approach the witness, your Honor, while I get copies of this?

THE COURT: You may.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I show you —

MR. WEINBERG: We’ll mark it —

THE COURT: I think it has already been marked because when Stacy Brooks was on the stand —

MR. WEINBERG: You are right, it has been marked, and we’ll figure out what the exhibit number is.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q “August 31, 1988. Commendable. The following people are acknowledged for their assistance on handling a cycle that was above and beyond their duties. Their actions helped in the standard application of Scientology technology on the introspection rundown that made a being sane. Highly commended: Jesse Prince.” Do you see that?

A Where? Suzie Watson? I had forgotten about her. The

909

rest of them people are security guards. Well, you know, this is possible. I hadn’t remembered it.

Q Well, you were pretty happy, were you not, that you were successful in your endeavors to help Teresita?

A You know, I was happy that she survived and made it home okay. I was happy about that. Yes.

Q And you’re aware that she’s alive today and is still a Scientologist?

A I have no information about that.

Q She went home? She was allowed to go home after the introspection rundown was concluded?

A Yes. She signed her release, similar to this thing I signed, and she —

Q No one told you to keep her there to avoid a public relations flap?

A After she was well?

Q Yes.

A No.

Q No?

A No.

Q And during this process, she hit you. Correct?

A Yes.

Q She ran out several times, ran out into the country?

910

A Right.

Q I mean, one could say, if they didn’t know, that she was crazy, that she was trying to escape, correct, when she ran out?

A You could surmise that. I don’t know. She was running in the wrong direction to escape because where we were at, we were on a — where this place is, where we had her, the mountains are behind there. And she ran up that way. Which, unless you are a skilled mountain climber, you are not going to go very far.

Q And what you did, you ran after her, didn’t you?

A Yes.

Q And you brought her back?

A No. Actually I couldn’t catch her because she ran so fast. Sometimes people have superhuman strength. And then she climbed so high. And she was a lightweight person. And when I tried to reach for her, I couldn’t reach where she was. So I had to literally sit and wait for her to decide to come down.

Q Then you brought her back?

A No. I walked behind her. She brought herself back.

THE COURT: Mr. Prince, you brought her back, she came back, you followed her back —

THE WITNESS: She came back.

911

THE COURT: The deal was you weren’t going to let her, in that state, go anywhere except stay there and continue to be handled. Right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you cannot speak for what all Scientologists — other Scientologists would follow as far as policy, can you?

A No, I cannot.

Q Because — because of the concept in Scientology that what is true for you is true. Correct?

A Well, not — not wholly because also it depends on how much you have been trained, how much policy you know, you know. You can’t be expected to understand something you don’t know.

Q We’ve talked about this in your depositions before. The point is, is that it is a policy of Scientology that Scientologists can decide on their own what — whether to ignore policy or not — to ignore a particular policy or not?

A No. That is not true.

Q Then what did you mean when you testified —

A Not ignore a policy. You know, I mean, how could you ignore the policy to lock the door when all of the staff

912

walk out? You know, you’re going to get in trouble. That doesn’t make sense. You don’t ignore the policy. Either you understand it and you accept it, or you don’t.

Q So you don’t have to accept it if you don’t want to, that is a policy — that is what is true for you is true for you?

A No. No, no. Maybe with tech, you know, a belief — but policy that lays out the fundamental actions of the organization? No.

Q You don’t have any knowledge of what the staff members that were staying with Lisa McPherson — what policies

they were or were not following and what they believed about those policies? You are not in a position to opine about that, are you?

A What policies — policy are you referring to?

Q Whatever policies they were advised as to or practicing when they were staying with Lisa McPherson.

A You know, that is kind of ambiguous. If you have got a policy, I could tell you whether or not I think they’re aware of it.

Q All right.

Now, do you remember that in or about August or September — we’ll pull the exact affidavit now — in 2001 you executed an affidavit that was the basis of a motion for severe sanctions against the Church, and as a
result you withdrew as an expert in the case?

913

THE COURT: Are we done with this affidavit?

MR. WEINBERG: Oh, yes.

THE COURT: All right, I’m going to let you have that back. Mr. Prince, if you want to, you can give that back.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: I believe this is in evidence, too, isn’t it?

MR. WEINBERG: I think it is. It is but — do we have copies of the affidavit? I think we have copies.

THE COURT: Okay. Good. I just went ahead — I’m just having the evidence filed as I read through it.

MR. WEINBERG: You know what —

THE COURT: It is too massive.

MR. WEINBERG: — this one I’m not positive about, whether it is in evidence or not.

THE COURT: I don’t know, either. Madam Clerk, how do you know what is in evidence?

MR. WEINBERG: I should know this and, frankly, I apologize.

THE COURT: Is there any way you can tell us whether an affidavit of Jesse Prince dated September of 2001 is in evidence?

914

THE CLERK: Yes, Judge, I can check. Is it plaintiff’s or defendant’s?

THE COURT: I can’t tell you if it is plaintiff’s or defendant’s. These come in under strange hands.

MR. DANDAR: I don’t believe the plaintiff used this at this hearing.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll mark it. We’ll mark as the next exhibit, the September of 2001 affidavit of Mr. Prince.

THE COURT: What number is that?

THE CLERK: 233.

MR. WEINBERG: 233.

THE COURT: And if you find it is in evidence, you’ll let us know and we’ll take that one out. We’ll have just a mound of evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: It is obviously part of a court record.

THE COURT: Yes. And I believe it has been referred to several times. But I’m not sure it has ever been introduced.

MR. DANDAR: 233?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: So it will be received.

MR. WEINBERG: Then — where is the motion? Do

915

you have the motion? I might as well do the whole package here. 234 would be the motion for severe sanctions.

THE COURT: I don’t know why I would need the motion to be introduced. But —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I think there was something I wanted to refer to and, frankly, I don’t know what it was. I’ll just mark it anyway. And that would be 234.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, is that an affidavit that you executed, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, it is, Mr. Weinberg.

Q And it was done — who wrote this affidavit?

A I did.

Q Did you get any help writing this affidavit?

A Mmm, maybe somebody, you know, did margins for me or, you know, word —

Q I mean, somebody drafted it for you? Nobody drafted it for you? You did all that?

A Again, I don’t want to be coy when answering the question. Sometimes Mr. Dandar or some attorney will suggest information based on conversations that we had and — quite normally.

And I think Mr. Dandar can attest to this, that I

916

normally start from the beginning and type my own, do my own work.

Q Now, if you go to Paragraph 22 and 23 of his affidavit, on Page 5 —

A Yes?

Q — you swore in the affidavit that — that — that:

“As a result of my arrest and criminal prosecution, I was extremely upset, embarrassed and humiliated and could see in here that my fiancee and her two minor children were traumatized by this experience.”

Then you went on in 23 to say that: “Further, I had advised Ken Dandar, counsel for the estate of Lisa McPherson, that I must withdraw as the estate’s expert in the above-captioned cause as a result of my arrest and prosecution and serious concern of further and more intense fair game by Scientology and its operatives.” Then you go on. Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q So the purpose of this affidavit was to say you were not going to be an expert anymore in this case because you were scared of Scientology. That is essentially what you said, right?

A No. I think that is a mis-characterization of what it says here.

917

Q How would you characterize it?

A I was concerned for my family. You see, I had no problem with weathering the storm with Scientology personally.

But this is beyond personal — I think I explained this in my testimony yesterday. Innocent people are involved here. It just wasn’t worth it to me. And I couldn’t hire an attorney. I just lost my job. You know, I don’t want to do that.

THE COURT: He said, “Not only to myself but my fiancee and her two children, who are all very dear to me.” That is all the same section.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did it concern you, for the previous four years when you were threatening the Church, picketing in front of their buildings, saying obscene things about David Miscavige, did it — did it — did it concern you then about Scientology?

A Mmm, what it — it concerned me the moment that I found out that this operation had been run on me and drugs put on my back porch. I mean, it just went to a whole new level at that point. This is at my home. This is where I
live. People coming in, putting seed around, you know, commiserating with police, telling them I’m a drug dealer, cocaine dealer.

I have children. My fiancee gets her children

918

taken away from her. It escalated to a new level, Mr. Weinberg.

Q But the affidavit is executed in September of 2001. You had been acquitted in the spring, hadn’t you?

A Yes. Then didn’t —

Q Not acquitted. There had been a hung jury and the prosecutor decided not to pursue it. That was in the spring, wasn’t it?

A Didn’t Mr. Rinder quote, in the St. Pete Times, “We’ll get him next time.” Okay? He was quoted, “We’ll get him next time.” I don’t want any more next times.

Q You continued to be an expert and consultant for Mr. Dandar up until — after the hung jury in the spring, up until September of 2001 when Mr. Minton said he wasn’t going to fund the case anymore. Is that what happened?

A No. Disrelated items.

Q It just happened to be coincidentally at the same time?

A If you characterize it that way. Again, like I say, as we’ve gone over, my regular job at the trust of helping people and doing things was over. We were in the process of leaving town. Everything Scientology wanted to accomplish had been accomplished. The trust was ruined.

You know, we were done. It was over. People were going home.

919

Q So —

A That wasn’t good enough.

Q Actually, you wouldn’t need to work on the case anymore because the trust was over. Right?

A No, you know, I wouldn’t draw that conclusion, Mr. Weinberg. I’m saying my family, right where I live, were threatened. You know, even today you knock on the door, if we get an unexpected visitor, people in my house jump out of their skin. What the hell, because that is exactly how the DEA came in my house, running around with fully automatic weapons in front of my children, because a Scientology private investigator told him I’m selling marijuana, cocaine, selling stolen auto parts; lying, in other words.

And this happened. Okay? I think I had a reason to be concerned.

Q Didn’t Mr. Minton ask you to withdraw from being an expert in the case?

A Never.

Q Did Ms. Brooks ask you to withdraw from the case?

A Yes, she did.

Q Did Ms. Brooks tell you that was Mr. Minton’s desire that you not be an expert anymore?

A No, she did not.

Q Did Ms. Brooks tell you why it was her desire you not be an expert in the case anymore?

920

A Yes, she did.

Q She said that had to do with the Lisa McPherson Trust, the reason?

A No, she said that Scientology had successfully inextricably mixed the work we were doing at the trust with this case, and irrespective of the lawyers and the arguments that they made, you know, it was like they wanted that, too.

Because of this, all of that discovery goes on with Mr. Minton, the trust is virtually raided, you know. Those kinds of reasons.

She said, “Look, if this case didn’t exist, none of this would be happening. We could still be doing this work. But because this has happened, it’s putting everyone in a horrible position. It ruined the company.”

Q Is there a particular reason why you didn’t put in your affidavit what Ms. Brooks had asked you to do, to withdraw?

A Yes, because it is irrelevant. It is my decision.

I spoke on this yesterday, Mr. Weinberg. I said, you know, Stacy wanted this to be done.

I spoke to Bob. And it is like, “Jesse, Stacy is upset because of discovery and things that are going on,” yik-yik-yik. And, “You know, if you have to work with Ken, it’s up to you if there is something that is needed to be done.” He didn’t care.

921

Q Did you tell Mr. Dandar that Ms. Brooks had told you — asked you to withdraw as an expert?

A I think Ms. Brooks may have called him herself because she was quite panicked.

Q Did you send a copy of the motion — a draft — a copy of the draft of the motion for severe sanctions to Mr. Minton before it was ever filed? You?

A I don’t think so.

Q Well, you did make it a practice to E-Mail or send or give to Mr. Minton copies of draft pleadings. You made that a practice, didn’t you?

A No. Come on.

Q In the case?

A Uh-uh.

Q Never did that, did you?

A No. And, you know, I don’t draft pleadings. Again, I’m not the lawyer.

MR. WEINBERG: The next exhibit. Your Honor, this is 235.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you see 235, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, I do.

Q This is a copy of an E-Mail which you sent to whom on 9/20/01?

922

A Okay. Okay.

Q You sent this to Mr. Minton, didn’t you?

A Apparently, I did.

Q And you say here —

MR. WEINBERG: We move this into evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And this is an E-Mail where you say —

THE COURT: Can you show me how we know it went to Mr. Minton? I can’t read this stuff well enough to know.

MR. WEINBERG: I think maybe Mr. Prince can explain that better than me.

THE COURT: What is it at the top that shows this went to Mr. Minton?

THE WITNESS: There is nothing that says this went to Mr. Minton on this document.

THE COURT: Well, you just remember sending it to Mr. Minton?

THE WITNESS: Well, I’m assuming. You know, I’m not here saying I have never sent anything to Mr. Minton about anything.

THE COURT: Here, maybe this is it, I don’t know, this is encrypted something at the back.

923

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE WITNESS: As far as I know, this was an encrypted message on my computer.

THE COURT: How do we know — how do we know this is — I mean, I don’t care, but how do we know that this is the same thing?

THE WITNESS: Exactly. Here we have a bunch of characters, and now attached to it with — you know, when you get on the Internet, it clearly says from who to who on the message. It doesn’t look like this. It is not in this format.

It is not like that.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, look at — look at this page here.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I don’t know how to indicate it.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Look at that page. That is an E-Mail you sent to Mr. Minton. Correct?

924

A Correct.

Q On September 20, 2001?

A Correct.

Q 9:41:07?

A Yes, I guess so.

Q Something like that?

A Yeah.

Q This is obviously an encrypted message. Correct?

A Correct.

Q You each had that program so you could communicate with one another in an encrypted fashion?

A Correct.

Q Then you had — what do you call it — decrypted, what is it, a code or something?

A Yes.

Q Then you are able to, on the other end, decode it, right?

A Correct.

Q All right. Now, the decoding is what the first part of this exhibit is?

A The what?

Q The decrypting, decoding, whatever it is called where it says: “Here is the motion Ken will file in the next day or two. And this is not the final form as he is doing more work on it today. I’ll make sure you have a copy

925

of the final draft.”

A Okay.

Q You did that, didn’t you?

A I did what now?

Q You sent to Mr. Minton that message in encrypted form with a draft of this motion for severe sanctions?

A You know, I’m going to hold off on saying that happened because, you know, here is this message, it is encrypted —

THE COURT: Well, you sent this to somebody, you’ll agree?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I sent it to somebody.

THE COURT: It could have been Mr. Minton?

THE WITNESS: It could have been Mr. Minton.

It could have been Mrs. Brooks. It could —

THE COURT: You wouldn’t be apt to send it to anybody else, right?

THE WITNESS: Sometimes I would check things via Mr. Leipold just to get his opinion on it, another attorney I work with.

THE COURT: I think I know what Mr. Weinberg was saying. If you look over on this — this what we’ll call the encrypted one, the date — or the time is 9:41:01 on September 20, 2001.

THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

926

THE COURT: If you look at the one we can read, it says 9:40:22.

THE WITNESS: You show me where you are —

THE COURT: Yes, sir. Up here. See here? 9/20/01. 9:40:22. See that?

THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: It looks like that is — that went out — now look over here. This encrypted, see, it says: “Date, September, 20, ’01, 9:41:01.” So it looks like it may have — it goes out once like this —

MR. DANDAR: That confirms it is not the same thing.

MR. WEINBERG: You know, I move this into evidence and we’ll get an authenticating affidavit from Mr. Minton saying that this is a document —

THE COURT: All right —

MR. WEINBERG: — that he received and he produced to us.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: And Mr. Prince didn’t — didn’t send it to Mr. Minton. What he basically is saying, he’s not sure. And I can’t tell, but it looks like there is some correlation between these two things. I don’t — I don’t think I’m smart enough or if you

927

are smart enough to prove it to me, but that will be enough — and you don’t deny that, right, it could have gone to Mr. Minton?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: I move it into evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: And I’m going to receive it because it was clearly something from Mr. Prince. And you just don’t know for sure who it went to, is that it?

THE WITNESS: Correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: What number is it again?

THE CLERK: 235.

THE COURT: 234?

MR. DANDAR: 235.

THE COURT: 235. Thank you.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, why would you be — assuming that this did go to Mr. Minton, why would you be sending Mr. Minton a draft of a motion for severe sanctions that was going to be filed by Ken Dandar in a couple days, in September of 2001, when you say that you had withdrawn from the case?

A Well, I’ll give you the — the answer I could think of about this — Mmm — this affidavit that you showed me earlier, this one here from September of 2001, I think it

928

is — yeah, where I talk about —

THE COURT: I’m sorry, I hate to do this. Is this the affidavit, or is this the motion?

MR. WEINBERG: This is the motion.

THE COURT: Okay. The affidavit isn’t here, unless that is what this is.

MR. WEINBERG: No. No. No. This — this — if you look at the note at the front, “Here is the motion Ken will file in the next day or so.”

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: The affidavit, you know, had already been done, apparently.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: This affidavit is dated the next day.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Anyway, this is the motion.

THE COURT: So your question was — I’m sorry — why would you send the motion —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q What was the reason — assuming you sent this draft to Mr. Minton, what was the reason you would have been sending to Mr. Minton, in September of 2001, an advance draft of a motion that was being filed for severe sanctions in the Lisa McPherson case?

929

A Because as I recall, he was extremely upset with me. He was extremely upset with Ken Dandar because of this affidavit here. You know, we’re busy going along here —

Q The affidavit wasn’t done — Mr. Dandar just pointed it out — until after this E-Mail went out?

A I’m just trying to give you what I remember so you can take it apart in a minute, if you just let me get it out.

Q All right. Go ahead.

A What I recall about this is Mr. Minton was extremely upset about this affidavit because I had gone through a whole criminal trial where I had not taken the stand and — nor — and I had not admitted guilt or — you know, assumed innocence. In other words, I sat through the trial and they had to no prosecute — or whatever, a hung jury.

So from my mouth, I had never said that I had used drugs with the private investigator and, you know, running around with this detective and whatever and whatever.

Now, from my own mouth, he felt it defeated the purpose of having a trial if you are just going to run around and do that. Again, you know, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know. I want them to know and do it.

But I do know that Ken was extremely upset over the fact that I wasn’t going to be his expert anymore, that

930

I wouldn’t be able to sit there and help him, as I had done, on the case. I’d worked on it for years. So this was very upsetting to him on a personal level when I told him, “Look, Ken –” and this is before — I told him, “Look, I can’t do this anymore. I can’t protect myself. I can’t protect my family. It seems the Court is letting Scientology do whatever they want to, running roughshod in here. All this crap is going on. There is no relief. I’m ready to leave this town. It is not personal against you, Mr. Dandar, that I think you know the reason why I can’t support you, but I can’t support you and protect my family, as well.”

Q Mr. Minton had told you that he wasn’t going to fund the case anymore at this time. Correct? You knew that?

A You know, I don’t understand how I can be saying one thing and then you just say something else.

THE COURT: That is a question.

THE WITNESS: No, that — no, that is not true, Mr. — Mr. Weiner — Weinberg.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q So you didn’t know that Mr. Minton had told Mr. Dandar, as of August of 2001, that there wasn’t going to be any more funds? You didn’t know that?

A You know, the last time we talked about this — I mean, Ken got, what, $500,000 in 2000 that was supposed to

931

take him to the end of the case. I wasn’t thinking about Mr. Dandar’s money. Mr. Dandar’s money and how he was operating this case financially was never — never has been any of my concern. There’s nothing I can do about it one way or the other.

Q Now, did you talk to Mr. Merrett about withdrawing from the case?

A Mr. Merrett spoke to me on behalf of Stacy Brooks. She wanted him to explain to me why it would be beneficial for the Lisa McPherson Trust and the people that we are trying to help if I withdrew from the case.

Q So that didn’t have anything to do with threats to your family or anything like that? That has to do with Mr. Minton’s request that you get out of the case because of the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A You know, I testified twice that Mr. Minton never said that. So I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.

Q Ms. Brooks then?

A Yes. Thank you. Get it right. That is why we’re here.

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Prince.

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry. I’m a little grouchy. I’m tired.

THE COURT: I understand. We all get grouchy. If you wait for another hour, I’ll get grouchy.

932

MR. WEINBERG: I have that in mind.

THE COURT: I get grouchy a little after 12 and 4 o’clock just about every day.

THE WITNESS: I know that 4 o’clock is the witching hour.

THE COURT: It’s a very bad hour for all of us.

MR. WEINBERG: I was going to say something but I won’t.

THE COURT: It is best you not.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. Well, let me show you what has already been marked as an exhibit, Exhibit 49. I have got a copy, so — it is that E-Mail.

THE COURT: The E-Mail? Okay. I thought I might see this E-Mail about now.

THE WITNESS: Everybody knows but me.

THE COURT: This has already been introduced into evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: This is 49.

THE COURT: And they testified about it.

MR. WEINBERG: Defense 49.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, this is an E-Mail that has been identified by Mr. Merrett, among others, that he sent to Mr. Dandar on August 24, 2001, which is before you executed your

933

affidavit, which says:

“Ken, the short version of what’s going on is this. The well is dry as far as money goes. Jesse is going to withdraw as an expert witness. Bob feels that the case is way out of control and is focused 100 percent on him and specifically on trying to put him in jail. He wants Dell to settle the case or otherwise make it go away. Bob isn’t coming into Florida any time soon. Can you meet with me and Stacy this weekend to discuss that?”

Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q Now, you knew about this E-Mail?

A No. Never. This is the first time I have ever seen it.

Q Well, how did Mr. Merrett know, as early as August 24, 2001, to tell Mr. Dandar that you were withdrawing as an expert witness?

A Well, you know, you would have to ask him that.

I’m not even a part of this. I mean, somebody is talking to me about it. If I said anything, it would just be hearsay, wouldn’t it?

Q So no one told you that the well was dry then?

A You know, I heard that several times. But as you and I both know, the well is not dry. Mr. Minton still has plenty of money to extricate himself out of trouble he gets into by seeing that new lawyers, having had three of them in

934

here since I have been testifying, for Christ’s sake, three different ones, Mr. Battaglia, another one yesterday, the one sitting here now.

Q You didn’t know as of August 24 Mr. Minton had sent the message to Mr. Dandar that there was going to be no more money? You didn’t know that?

A No. No, sir, I did not.

THE COURT: Please try to refrain from taking the Lord’s name in vain in this case.

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, your Honor, I didn’t even know I — did I say the GD word?

THE COURT: No, you didn’t say that one. You’ll see it on a transcript.

THE WITNESS: Okay. I’m sorry, your Honor.

Like I said, I’m tired, grouchy.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You did. But — he didn’t tell you that the well was dry, Mr. Minton, but he did tell you, you said, about having given Mr. Dandar a $500,000 check?

A Yeah, you know, and I’m talking about 2000, okay?

Then again, you know, just in February, he said, “Look, Ken needs more money. Go over and have this conversation with him.”

So how could the well be dry on this date, but a little while later, hey, here is another quarter of a

935

million.

You know, this was not anything I was privy to, anything I was dealing with.

You know, Stacy was in a complete panic, as I said. We were being raided. You know, motion after motion, deposed, on and on. You know, she was panicked. She got spooked. You know, she was just trying to put a band-aid on this any way she can.

Q It is true Mr. Minton told you — as indicated in this E-Mail, it is true he was concerned about going to jail at that point, correct, in August of 2001?

MR. DANDAR: Objection. There is no jail mentioned in this E-Mail.

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.

MR. WEINBERG: Yes, it is.

THE COURT: Yes, there is.

MR. DANDAR: Then I’ll sit down and be corrected.

THE COURT: Good.

THE WITNESS: But you are asking the wrong person. I told you I have never seen this —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q No, I’m asking you, it is true that either Ms. Brooks or Mr. Minton told you in this time period that Mr. Minton was concerned that he was going to end up in

936

jail?

A I don’t know that.

Q I’m just asking you —

THE COURT: He said he doesn’t know. He told you that twice. Now, go on to the next question.

Okay?

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did Ms. Brooks or Mr. Minton tell you, at or about that time, that they felt the case was out of control?

A I never — I never really heard those words that the case was out of control. I mean, you know —

THE COURT: But you were being told that they were very concerned that the Lisa McPherson case and Lisa McPherson Trust was all getting inextricably intertwined?

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Courts were letting all these documents be acquired. This is what is out of control perhaps, right? So you were aware they were all disturbed about this?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Disturbed at the discovery, yes.

THE COURT: Well, disturbed with — that the Lisa McPherson Trust be shut down?

937

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: You knew all that, did you? Or did you?

THE WITNESS: You know, I didn’t have an understanding — you know, in all honesty, you know, Judge, Mr. Minton was going through this thing with Judge Baird where he was to appear and he didn’t appear.

I understood none of that. I didn’t understand what was going on. I didn’t understand what the big problem was. If he was supposed to be deposed, you simply come in and you get deposed. You may not like it, you may not whatever.

But, you know, then we had these problems where he can’t come down, on and on. You know, a bad situation just got worse.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You knew that money didn’t have anything to do with Mr. Minton shutting down the Lisa McPherson Trust, right?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Good time for a stop?

MR. WEINBERG: I think so because I have another area to go to.

THE COURT: It is — I need to take a little

938

longer this afternoon. We’ll be in recess until ten after. Twenty minutes.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 2:50 to 3:15 p.m.)

_______________________________________

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Ready? Let’s just make an exhibit search here for one second to make sure we don’t have any originals up here.

THE WITNESS: I think we took care of that.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right, Mr. Prince —

A Yes?

Q — you have talked several times about being in the desert. Right?

A Yes.

Q There are two locations that are within a few miles of one another that you have been referring to. Right?

A Yes.

Q One is Hemet which is where the Golden Era Productions is where you worked after you left RTC. Correct?

A That is actually incorrect, Mr. Weinberg. It’s Gilman Hot Springs, near Hemet, but it is — it is like its own little separate town.

939

Q Golden Era Productions is in Gilman Hot Springs, and that is what you described as being in the desert? That is one of the locations in the desert?

A Yes.

Q Then the other location in the desert is —

A Soboba Indian Reservation.

Q Is the what?

A Soboba Indian Reservation.

Q And that is where you — that is where you had the introspection rundown with Teresita. Right?

A It was actually behind the reservation in a private-owned property, correct. Yes.

Q That is where you said the RPF was?

A Correct.

Q The incident that — that had to do with the day that you were relieved of your position at RTC and the guns, that was at Gilman Hot Springs?

A Correct.

Q I want to show you some photos.

MR. WEINBERG: These are for you. This can be marked — this Booklet A, 1 through 11, but we’ll mark it as Exhibit 236. But what I have done, your Honor, you have the same pictures, but they are in this book like this. So A1 would be the first one.

THE COURT: Okay.

940

MR. WEINBERG: Okay?

THE COURT: I can keep this?

MR. WEINBERG: You can give it back to us, unless you want to keep it.

THE COURT: No. I’ll give it back to you.

MR. WEINBERG: This is 236. I’m handing this to Mr. Prince.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Do I get a copy?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, if you look at A1 through A11, you recognize that as being the location in Gilman Hot Springs that Golden Era Productions was at where you say is in the desert.Correct?

A Yes.

Q And if you would just flip through and just describe very briefly A1, A2, through 11. Could you do that?

A Yes. I think so.

This looks like a view from —

THE COURT: Tell me what you are talking about.

Is it A1?

THE WITNESS: A1.

941

THE COURT: Okay.

A This looks like a view from the dining area and the qualifications area and the studio, the studio from a perspective of the river bank, which is just further back here, the dry riverbed.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q What is A2?

A A2, there is a building here that, you know — wait a minute, yes, I do — this is the dining — this is apparently an aerial shot of the dining area.

Q Okay. A3, do you recognize that building?

A This — I think this may have been some new construction since I have been there. I can’t say. Do I recognize this building? I can’t rightfully say that I do.

THE COURT: Okay, that is an “I don’t know.” And that is enough.

A Okay. I don’t know.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Was Building 36 the main administrative offices of Golden Era? That was on-site when you were there?

A Oh, is this where they do the E-meters and things in there?

Q Do you remember that is where you were interviewed by Mr. Rathbun when you left in 1992, that was the building?

A Yes.

942

Q If you go to A4, do you recognize that as the lake, with the administrative building in the background?

A Yes, I do, with the exercise trail.

Q And A5, do you recognize that as a sports field for the crew?

A In all honesty, I don’t recognize it, but I believe it is.

Q And A6, do you remember there were crew basketball courts?

A Yes. Yes, I do.

Q And A7, what is that?

A I have no earthly idea.

Q That is new, isn’t it?

A I —

Q Or do you know?

A It is outside of my knowledge.

Q Okay. A8, is that another building that is new?

A It’s something that is outside of my knowledge. I don’t know. I have never seen this on the property.

Q Now, you do recognize A9 as the set inside the film studio where you were working?

A No, sir. You know, matter of fact, I never worked in this area of cinematography. I worked in the audio department.

Q There is a film studio on campus, though, right?

943

A Yes. But this looks considerably larger than the film studio that was there when I was present.

Q And A10, was the golf course there while you were there?

A Mmm, I think they had started construction on it and — had hired a company to come out and do it. I think so, but I have never seen this before.

Q Oh?

A What you showed me here.

Q Now, how many years did you work in the desert at Gilman Springs, this location that you looked at, A1 through 11?

A Probably at least ten years.

Q Were the RTC offices there, as well?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Let’s put those aside.

Now we’ll mark as our next exhibit — it will be Photos B1 through 5. It is Exhibit 237. I’ll give you these.

Now, you do recognize B1 through 5 as pictures of the studios where you did work when you were at Gilman Hot Springs after you — after March of 1987?

A Well, in actual fact, the only one that I recognize as the studio that I possibly worked in is B4.

Q And that would be a picture of doing what? What

944

was your job there?

A Well, I take that back, and I don’t want to — you know, I don’t know where this is, as a matter of fact. I haven’t seen this.

This looks like maybe they have new equipment.

You know, this is not anything I’m familiar with, in all honesty.

Q You worked in the film mix room?

A Mmm, I worked in the post-production — this is a building they have on top of the hill from the perspectives from the — the first photograph album that you showed me.

Where I worked at was close to a place that used to be called Bonnie View, which is L. Ron Hubbard’s home at Gilman Hot Springs.

Q And it was a studio something like what you were looking at there? I mean, there was film production or film mix going on. Correct?

A Mmm, I — I can’t say that, Mr. Weinberg, because everything here — all these pictures that you are showing me, with the exception of B4, seems to do with music.

Q Were there things like this at Gilman Hot Springs when you were there?

A Yes.

Q Whether you worked there or not?

A Yes.

945

Q And you recognize that from the photos. Correct?

A Well, again, I said again, B4 is something I recognize as being —

THE COURT: I think the long and short, you really can’t recognize it?

THE WITNESS: I can’t. This is all different from when I was there.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, let me show you —

THE WITNESS: Very beautiful, though.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The whole location is beautiful, though, isn’t it?

A It looks like it is now. It wasn’t quite like that when I was there.

Q Well, the first set of photos of Gilman Hot Springs, it looked like that when you were there?

A Not exactly. There has been a lot of new construction there, from what I can see.

Q The building you described as buildings that were there looked like that when you were there. Right?

THE COURT: Whatever he said, he said, Counsel.

All right?

MR. WEINBERG: 238. These photos are marked I1 through 3.

946

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q This is Exhibit 238. Would you look at these, please.

A Sure.

Q Do you recognize these photos?

A Yes, Mr. Weinberg. This is the place where Mr. Miscavige and I came to, after the gun incident, to talk about things.

Q This is where you said you walked to the ship in the desert? This is where the ship in the desert is?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Is that the swimming pool (indicating)?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q This is still Gilman Hot Springs?

THE COURT: But the ship in the desert is the swimming pool?

MR. DANDAR: No. There is a ship.

MR. WEINBERG: Actually, if you look at I3, you see the ship.

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And it is around a very nice pool area. Correct?

A Correct.

947

Q So when you indicated the ship in the desert where, after this gun incident, you went with Mr. Miscavige is I1 through 3?

A Correct.

THE COURT: Is that a ship? Or a mast on top of a building?

MR. WEINBERG: Ask Mr. Prince.

THE COURT: Is that a ship? Or is that some masts on top of a building?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it is a design that looks like a ship but it is actually a beautiful pool area. It is not a ship but it looks like a ship. There is a wheel there —

THE COURT: But that is what you-all call it, ship in the desert?

THE WITNESS: No. I forgot what we call this thing.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q That is what you called it on the stand, though?

A That is how I referred to it, yes.

Q Then we have one more set of photos to show you — two more, I guess.

MR. WEINBERG: This is just one photo here.

THE CLERK: 239.

MR. WEINBERG: 239. And it is marked J1.

948

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q 239, Mr. Prince, one photo. And I ask you if you recognize that to be a photo of the conference room in Gilman Hot Springs where you were interviewed by Mr. Rathbun in 1992, just before leaving the Church of Scientology?

A Unfortunately, Mr. Weinberg, none of this looks familiar to me at all.

Q Okay.

THE COURT: I’m sorry, did you say it does not look familiar?

THE WITNESS: Correct, your Honor.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. The last set are three photos.

THE COURT: You want to go ahead and take these?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes. These are marked K1 through 3. And this is Exhibit 240.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you recognize Exhibit 240, don’t you?

A Which one is — is this the thing you just handed me?

Q Yes.

A No, I do not. I do not —

Q Let me go through those K1 through 3.

A I don’t recognize this at all.

949

Q Well, let me just see if I can refresh your recollection.

A Okay.

Q Do you recognize this being at Happy Valley, which is where this Indian reservation is?

A Not at all.

Q So you don’t recognize this as being one of the locations where you were with Teresita?

A No, I do not. It did not look like this at all.

Q Well, what did it look like?

A Mmm, well, the place where Teresita stayed in, it was a wooden house that was on wood planks that sat on the ground. And there was — Mmm — it was very old, kind of like something that had been left for a long time and then kind of started being used again kind of thing. There was none of this lush, beautiful greenery. It was just gravel roads and crap everywhere.

THE COURT: Do you recognize this?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: As long as he can’t recognize it, it can’t really be introduced.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Back at the Teresita house — we don’t have to look at the photos. But the house, do you remember how many bedrooms the house was?

950

A To the best of my recollection, I believe there was one.

Q All right. And then there was, what, a living room, kitchen, dining room, bathroom? What else was in it? Do you remember?

A Mmm, there was a kitchen. There was a room — let me see. There was a kitchen, there was a front door, there was a small room, there was another room, and a bedroom and a bathroom, to the best of my recollection.

Q And a kitchen of some sort?

A Yes.

Q And you stayed — did you stay in the house, as well?

A No. A woman — you know, a woman would stay with her at night.

MR. WEINBERG: All right, let me sort through this, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay, we offer at this time into evidence Exhibit 231, which are the A1 through 11 which are the pictures of Gilman Hot Springs.

THE COURT: I have got those as 236.

MR. DANDAR: It is 236.

MR. WEINBERG: That is because I can’t read very well. It is 236.

951

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: We offer 237, which are the —

THE COURT: He recognized one of those.

MR. WEINBERG: 237 B4, which is the one he identified, this one (indicating).

THE COURT: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you remember that?

A (Nods head.)

MR. WEINBERG: Then we offer —

THE COURT: 238 he recognized.

MR. WEINBERG: 238, which is the pictures of the pool and the ship.

THE COURT: 239 and 240, he didn’t recognize any of those.

MR. WEINBERG: Right, so I’ll not offer those at this time. And we’ll leave them marked.

THE COURT: So I’ll give you these back.

MR. WEINBERG: You accepted into evidence what we just offered?

THE COURT: Yes. Mr. Dandar, once again, if you want to object, I’m assuming you’ll do so.

MR. DANDAR: Yes, I will.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: But, then again, I didn’t know if

952
you wanted me — no, I’m just kidding.

THE COURT: No, I have done the same with Mr. Weinberg. A lot of times I say it is admitted because I know he will pop up if he wants to object.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m not reluctant to pop up.

THE COURT: Right. But from time to time I want to remind you, you have the right to object.

Q While she’s doing that, let me ask you a couple of questions with regard to what I’m about to show you.

A All right.

Q You testified either yesterday or the day before — or the day before, or weeks before, I can’t remember when it is now when you actually started —

A This — I think this is my third day.

Q Okay. But you testified that you had not participated in any meetings with Mr. Dandar at the LMT.

You remember that testimony?

953

MR. DANDAR: I didn’t hear that. I’m sorry.

THE COURT: He asked if he remembered that he had stated he had not participated in any meetings with you at the LMT.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you remember that?

A Not particularly, no.

Q Well, let me ask you. Did you engage in any meetings — meetings where you discussed legal strategies with Mr. Dandar at the LMT in the presence of Mr. Minton?

A Not that I can recall specifically.

Q Okay. I mean, I think you said that Mr. Dandar was barely at the LMT. Didn’t you say that?

A Correct.

Q Now, do you remember a meeting with yourself, Dr. Garko, Mr. Dandar, Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks at the LMT to discuss picketing and the legalities of it?

A No, I do not.

Q Would you watch this, please. Then I have a few questions.

A Sure.

______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“I love it when I’m on camera.

“Well, tell me what Nancy Miller said to you

954

concerning —

“Not to me. To Kim Rondolini and Denis deVlaming.

“Okay, your lawyers.

“They said that the police department would not be quick — or they would not arrest anyone within the 10-foot zone while they were picketing except for me. If I enter a 10-foot zone, I’ll get arrested period. That is the same as before. But nobody else would be arrested.

“No Scientologist would be arrested just in the ordinary course of things. A Scientologist who happens to be walking down the street getting 20 feet away from me, they wouldn’t be arrested. What Kim Rondolini suggested or
what Lieutenant Nancy Miller said — remember I said this shouldn’t be on camera the other night, but I don’t care, we’ll just leave it on there — is that while they have no right to tell us this, they would ask that we refrain from entering into that 10-foot zone while picketing because if — if something happens — which they felt reasonably confident that the Scientologists might try to provoke — it would in- — inevitably get blamed on us. And, therefore, somebody — somebody might get arrested and it would reflect badly upon me relative to the case that is sitting in front of Bernie McCabe now with respect to the assault — battery charge. Sorry.

“Well, I still think the best practice is to stay

955

10 feet away from the building.

“I don’t. You know why? You know why?

“Especially for you.

“For me, I have to because I would violate the injunction by being within 10 feet.

“It is impossible for him to do right now because I just found out what Stacy told me, within the last 36 hours they closed on the building next door.

“Which building?

“The Robelling (phonetic) one going that way.

“The building right next door?

“Yes, right where — wall-to-wall, they just closed in the last 36 hours, it is confidential, somebody came and told me that, literally.

“Well, they tried to get the one right beyond that —

“They got the whole building, the whole thing from Octavio’s to here belongs to them now.

“No, it doesn’t.

“Yes, it does.

“No. No. No.

“Yes.

“Listen, I’m telling you —

“Yes.

“– the injunction is against you and agents and

956

employees of yours. And that doesn’t include the Lisa McPherson Trust.

“That’s right.

“Anybody can walk down that sidewalk except you.

“That is correct.

“Anybody that — that is a volunteer from the trust can walk down that sidewalk without carrying a picket sign.

“Yeah.

“Because they are not in concert with you at the time they’re walking down there to go to a restaurant or get a Coke.

“Exactly. That is what I’m saying.

“I agree with you on that point.

“Yeah.

“However, if you organize a picket —

“Then they should stay on the other —

“– you have to stay 10 feet away.

“Exactly. That is what I’m saying here. All I’m saying —

“But the injunction applies to you whether or not you are in a picket or not.

“Well, it would — the police said it wouldn’t apply to them.

“I think I got it now. As soon as I can — sorry.

957

“Well, okay. Let me give you a perfect example of this today. We had somebody coming from Tampa, Counsel. We had two Germans come in who wanted to do a picket with me.And so we went at lunchtime and did a picket. I told them that as long as they’re with me and we’re picketing, I recommend highly we all stay 10 feet away from them —

“Right.

“– on the other side of the street while we’re picketing. And everybody abided by that.

“He was very courteous. He said, ‘I appreciate the fact that all of you have been trying very hard to cooperate with this whole thing. I’m sorry about the confusion that has been caused by this whole thing.’

958

“But, he said — he said, ‘You have every right to walk down a public sidewalk. The only person who has been named that has any kind of restriction is Bob Minton. There is no one else that has been named that has any restrictions.’

“Really, what I understood from what he was saying, it is not the police department’s job to do this. I mean, Sid Kline specifically for —

“Sid Kline — let me just explain.

“Specifically for that picket he said this is the way we’re going to do it. But I think it is putting him in an uncomfortable position to be asked to interpret the law. And so I think that Denis should go before the judge.

Don’t you, Ken?

“Well, in the meantime —

“Seek modification as soon as possible.

“But if we walk down the street, not picketing, I go buy a goddamn apple —

“You have the legal right to walk down the sidewalk. The police agree with that. Lieutenant D.J. Hall, who is in charge of this district, who tells his officers what to do and what not to do, said you can walk down the sidewalk except Bob Minton.

“Right.

“But he said, ‘Please, until this gets sorted out, can you walk on the other side of the street so we don’t get called down here a lot and just keep wasting our time driving down here? But if you want to — if you want to and they call, we’ll come down.’ (Inaudible.)

“Okay, here he is. Hi.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)

______________________________________

960

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you remember that meeting with Mr. Dandar?

A I do not, but I see it now.

Q And the reason that is part of the film library of the LMT is what?

A Personally, I have no knowledge of it being a part of a film library. This looks like a video of — a private video that was shot. And it was never published, that I know of. I don’t think this ever appeared on the Internet. It is not part of the videos that is offered by the Lisa McPherson Trust or anything else. It seemed just like a private video.

Q Do you know what the trial consultant, Dr. Garko, was doing at this meeting where there was — where the legalities of picketing were being discussed?

A No, I do not.

Q And was Mr. Dandar, Mr. Minton or your lawyer or the LMT lawyer at that point giving advice about what you could, couldn’t do, as far as Judge Penick’s order?

A You know, I don’t — I’m sorry, I don’t know. I don’t have recall about that. I know our good friend, Mr. Penick, sorted this out for everyone wonderfully, though.

Q That was at the LMT, correct?

A What we just saw there?

961

Q Yes.

A Yes, it was.

Q You would call that a meeting, the one where you were all sitting in the room, with Mr. Dandar, Dr. Garko and you —

A I would say we certainly were having a discussion.

Q That was one of the examples where you were having a meeting, Mr. Minton would sort of express — sort of taking over the meeting?

A You are mixing two things. He would express his opinion. That doesn’t mean he would take over the meeting. Mr. Dandar spoke. Stacy spoke. I spoke. It seems like everyone has been allowed to speak. There doesn’t necessarily seem to be a chairman of that meeting. We’re just having a discussion.

Q And that meeting took place while you were being paid by Mr. Dandar as a trial consultant?

A I don’t know those dates. I don’t know.

THE COURT: Could you give him a date?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Yes, what was the date? It is January of 2000?

A I’ll stipulate to the evidence. I’ll agree with that.

Q Now, did Mr. Dandar ever tell you, you know, when you were getting paid by Mr. Dandar, including then in

962

January of 2000, that you shouldn’t be — as his religion expert, you shouldn’t be picketing the Church?

MR. DANDAR: I’ll object to Mr. Weinberg raising his voice at the witness. It is uncalled for.

THE COURT: It was fairly modest. So I think Mr. Prince can handle that.

THE WITNESS: After all this, sure.

A You know, I think that — I forgot what the question was.

MR. WEINBERG: She can read it back to you.

THE COURT: I believe it was did Mr. Dandar ever suggest, as his consultant/expert on religion, that you should not be involved in picketing?

A Yes. He didn’t like that. Mr. Dandar didn’t like that.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And he didn’t express that opinion at that meeting that we just looked at, did he?

A Excuse me?

Q He didn’t express that opinion at that meeting that we just viewed, did he?

A I didn’t hear it. I think we were talking about walking down the street, though. I think the subject of that video was walking down the street. It wasn’t so much

963

picketing. We talked about picketing, but what we’re talking about is the ability to be able to walk down the street without being arrested.

THE COURT: And the two videos were entirely different, different — it was different, everybody was all dressed up the second time.

MR. WEINBERG: Was it?

THE COURT: The first time —

MR. WEINBERG: It’s the same day, the same time, because Dr. Garko was there and Mr. Dandar was there. It’s from the same tape, at least.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, for the record, we’re going to supply, for the record, tapes of what we played and transcripts of what we played —

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: — because I doubt that the court reporter —

THE COURT: I’m sure they are able to get it because —

MR. WEINBERG: Some are tough. I mean, that one was probably easier, but all these videos we played —

THE COURT: If the court reporter was unable to get it and you supply a transcript, let the court

964

reporter take it down, because the district court, and I’m sure the Supreme Court, as well, now wants videos, wants tapes, transcribed in the record.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: So if the court reporter got it, that is grand. If the court reporter said she didn’t get it, perhaps you and Mr. Dandar can agree on the — what it was and she can put it in the transcript. Then we don’t need the transcripts in the record.

MR. WEINBERG: So what we’ll do is we’ll put the videos in the record and we’ll have transcripts available for the court reporter, if needed.

THE COURT: Let’s go ahead, since he’s here, let’s take — will five minutes do it?

MR. KEANE: Yes. Fine.

THE COURT: We’ll just take a little break here. And I’ll be back as soon as I’m done.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken.)

965

______________________________________

THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Keane brought me four packets of E-Mails that didn’t look too overwhelming. I’ll take them home tonight and look at them. Some are Mr. Dandar’s, some of Ms. Greenway’s, some are those identified by — who is Stacy Brooks’s lawyer, Mr. McGowan?

MR. FUGATE: McGowan.

THE COURT: As attorney-client privilege.

There is a different group.

So I’ll go through them and decide if any or all of them you can have and make them available.

MR. FUGATE: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: If I don’t get it done tonight, I’ll try to get it done by Friday. Is today Wednesday?

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

MR. FUGATE: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LIEBERMAN: One day just runs into another.

THE COURT: It sure does. I just tell everybody 9 to 5 all day every day.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, could I talk to Mr. Lieberman?

THE COURT: Yes.

966

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll check an exhibit number.

This is a supplemental affidavit of Jesse Prince that I put in yesterday.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: This is exhibit — Plaintiff’s Exhibit 132.

THE COURT: Are these — are these the exhibits?

THE CLERK: No. Those are the transcripts.

THE COURT: Lee —

MR. FUGATE: Yes, ma’am?

THE COURT: — I thought I had five volumes here of transcripts. And then I see that this is Volume 1 of the time line, discovery, contempt and coercive sanctions. And this is Volume 2. This says Binder 3, 4, 5. I wonder if I have Volume 2.

MR. FUGATE: You, I think, took those with you.

THE COURT: Did I take them with me?

MR. FUGATE: Yes.

THE COURT: I’ll look and see if maybe I have them in my office.

MR. FUGATE: Because I think we were up to Binder 3. And 2 — I mean, 4 and 5 are just since we’ve been back.

THE COURT: But you started Volume 1 with the

967

first day of the hearing?

MR. FUGATE: Yes.

THE COURT: I’ll check it. Those are exhibits.

MR. FUGATE: Let me just check.

Yes, Judge, 1 and 2 beginning, and 3 and 4 and 5 continue on. So 5 is the latest which just went up there today.

THE COURT: I’ll have to look then, because I was thinking I better start taking these home. And I thought I would start with 1. And apparently maybe it is home or here. I’ll check. Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Okay, I just showed you your September — I’m sorry, your December 22, 1999 affidavit — or declaration, the supplemental declaration that you submitted in the Wollersheim versus Church of Scientology California case.

A Yes, you did.

Q And that is Exhibit Number 1 on the front?

A Exhibit Number 132.

Q Plaintiff’s 132?

A Yeah. Evidence 132.

Q Now, this was an affidavit — this was a declaration — but an under oath statement — that was filed by you at the request of Mr. Leipold?

A Correct.

968

Q Now, you did this declaration in response to a declaration that had been filed by Mr. Miscavige in this case a few months prior. Correct?

A No, sir. That is incorrect.

Q Well, you — if you turn to Page 9 —

A Okay.

Q — Paragraph 14, you say: “The missionaire in charge of the San Francisco mission holder’s vision was David Miscavige. Mr. Miscavige is flat out attempting to deceive this court in his declaration when he characterizes his presence at the conference as that of an ‘invited’ master of ceremonies.”

A Okay, yes, you are right. I remember that.

Q Do you remember that now?

THE COURT: The whole affidavit may not have been filed in that response. I remember reading that last night. It was one of the things I took home. I just remember that as being part of the affidavit. I mean, I’m not saying it wasn’t.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: I don’t know why it was filed. But that is just one of a lot of stuff in there?

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

969

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q But what I’m saying is when you — you had reviewed and were being asked, among other things, to comment on things that had been raised or discussed by Mr. Miscavige in his declaration. Correct?

A Well, not entirely. What I was asked to do specifically by Mr. Leipold was to do a declaration that would shed some light into how Scientology works, how the different corporations relate to each other, what are the names of them, what are the practices of them. I think —

THE COURT: Well, when you said — I didn’t mean to get off here. When you said whatever you said about Mr.Miscavige was misleading the Court, was that in some testimony? Was this in a declaration? In a deposition? Or do you know?

THE WITNESS: I don’t recall at this time.

MR. WEINBERG: But it says here the declaration.

THE COURT: Then it must be the declaration.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

MR. DANDAR: Which page is that on?

MR. WEINBERG: Paragraph 14 on Page 9.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And declaration is this thing that is used in the California court, as opposed to an affidavit in Florida,

970

correct?

A Correct.

Q Now, let me show you what we’ll have the reporter mark as the next exhibit.

THE CLERK: 241.

MR. WEINBERG: 241. Do we have a copy for the Judge?

THE COURT: What is the number?

THE CLERK: 241.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. WEINBERG: 241. For this part I’ll just give you this.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q If you look at that declaration, you remember that Mr. Miscavige filed a long declaration with regard that was submitted in the Wollersheim case that you reviewed and at least commented on in this declaration that you filed a few months later. Correct?

A Yes, I did comment, in part, in my declaration about this one.

Q Right. And as this one indicates, it was filed on September 29, 1999, which would be a few months before your declaration was done. Correct? Yours is December.

A That is correct.

971

Q Okay. Now —

THE COURT: Out of curiosity, I just started leafing through here real quick, and I see if this is a declaration that came before Mr. Prince’s declaration, on Page 54, Paragraph 115, it says:

“Further, I do not know why Prince would allege he signed an undated letter of resignation.”

MR. WEINBERG: Right, because this is —

Mr. Prince’s, the one in front of you, is a supplemental declaration.

THE COURT: Mr. Prince had a declaration?

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: Mr. Miscavige —

MR. WEINBERG: Responded to it.

THE COURT: Then this is a supplemental?

MR. WEINBERG: Right. All right?

THE COURT: Okay. And what I was given yesterday and what I read last night was a supplemental affidavit?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes. The one that —

THE COURT: 134, whatever you call it.

MR. WEINBERG: Let me just — I should — I’m usually better at this than that. It is 132, it is Mr. Prince’s supplemental declaration.

THE COURT: All right.

972

MR. WEINBERG: Okay? It is falling apart.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

MR. WEINBERG: Now, your Honor, what goes along with this declaration is there were exhibits, this and this. We will just put this in the record.

This is part of — of 241.

THE COURT: What is that?

MR. WEINBERG: It would be exhibits that go with Mr. Miscavige’s declaration.

THE COURT: Other than what I have got attached to this —

MR. WEINBERG: Yes. Well, this is Exhibit Q.

THE COURT: Oh.

MR. WEINBERG: — of the declaration, “The Way To Happiness,” which you have seen before.

And the tape is what? The tape is — I’m not sure what the tape is. What is the tape? Oh, I need the tape back. The tape was actually some of the videos we are going to put in from yesterday.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: So exhibit — what was it –241?

THE CLERK: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Exhibit 241 is what you have in front of you, plus Exhibit Q here.

973

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Which you may or may not want.

That is “The Way To Happiness.”

THE COURT: I thought “The Way To Happiness” was the little book, the little brochure.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I guess I’ll open this up and find out. I have to look.

No, this is a — well, this is a —

THE COURT: This must be a —

MR. WEINBERG: This is a better — this is what was filed. This is the — the bound copy of it.

THE COURT: I’ll let it come in as to whatever part relates to this testimony. I’m sure there is stuff that doesn’t. But rather than try to pick and choose, we’ll just let it all in for now.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: And this is, I’m sure, a deluxe

974

version of the little brochure.

MR. WEINBERG: I think it is. I’m sure it is.

THE COURT: That was Number 241?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Thanks.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you have in front of you your April 2002 affidavit.

A No, I do not.

Q Probably not. Mr. Dandar marked that yesterday.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we see if we can find that one? That is the one that was filed — the most recent affidavit.

THE COURT: Is that the May 2002? No?

MR. DANDAR: April. April.

MR. WEINBERG: I think it’s April, your Honor.

You marked it as an exhibit, right, Mr. Dandar?

MR. DANDAR: I thought I did, yes.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Dandar, I’m looking here,”Notice of Filing Affidavit in Opposition of Defendant’s Omnibus Motion.” Is that the one?

MR. DANDAR: That is the one.

THE COURT: Okay. It is dated — “Jesse Prince, sworn the 1st day of May, 2002.” So I want to make sure we’re looking at the same one.

975

MR. DANDAR: Let’s make sure. The front says April 2002? The next page? Yes, that is it. I see the attachment.

THE COURT: It says April 2002. He signed it May 1. We can agree it’s the same?

MR. DANDAR: It’s the same.

MR. WEINBERG: Do you have a copy for Mr. Prince?

THE CLERK: What exhibit is that, Judge?

THE COURT: I don’t know. It was something that came in —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, it was filed in this case.

THE COURT: It is filed.

MR. DANDAR: I would like it to be part of the evidence.

THE COURT: Yes, let’s make this the next plaintiff’s exhibit, which would be what? We’ll make this Plaintiff’s 135.

So now it is Plaintiff’s 135.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince, you have a copy of it?

A Yes, I do.

THE COURT: Do you have that?

976

THE CLERK: No. I don’t.

THE COURT: Well, you’ll have to give the clerk one.

MR. DANDAR: Well, I’ll make a copy of that as soon as we’re done.

THE COURT: Okay. Because I have one here but it is mine.

MR. DANDAR: It is yours.

THE COURT: And I guess what you want to be sure is the notes — I think they were attached to the original affidavit.

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: — are part of the affidavit.

So, Madam Clerk, you have an affidavit with some attachments, some handwritten notes?

THE CLERK: Right.

THE COURT: Go ahead, Counsel.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, this is an affidavit that was prepared by who?

A Which one now?

Q The one we’re looking at.

THE COURT: The one you have in front of you.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The one that says April 2002 but I guess it is

977

dated May 1, 2002.

A Okay. You know, you gave me three of them here.

Q I gave you what?

A Three declarations.

Q Oh, I’m sorry, the one that Mr. Dandar is entering as his next exhibit is your May 1, 2002 affidavit.

A Okay.

Q Who prepared that affidavit?

A I did.

Q And where did you prepare it?

A Mmm, in Mr. Dandar’s office; partially at my home.

Q When did you prepare it?

A Well, according to this document, it looks like I started it in April and executed it May 1.

Q But, now, this isn’t too long ago. So I’m asking you, when do you recall that you first started work on this affidavit?

A Mmm, let me see. Maybe the second week of April. I don’t know. The second, third week of April. No — yeah, maybe the third week of April.

Q The third week of April?

A Yeah.

Q And did you — at that point, did anybody make any suggestions, revisions, changes, to your affidavit?

A Mmm, no.

978

Q Who typed the affidavit?

A I did.

Q So it was produced off of your computer?

A Yes.

Q Or what?

A Yes.

Q Executed in Mr. Dandar’s office?

A Correct. I used my laptop.

Q Now, did — what prompted you to do this affidavit?

A My friends were being blackmailed and coerced. There was nothing that I could do to get them to try another solution to whatever problem that they were trying to have — they wanted me to do it with them. I refused to do
it. I spoke to law enforcement about these things. And I put it in writing for the benefit of Judge Schaeffer and anyone else who would be interested in it.

Q The time that you started this affidavit, the Church had already filed its motion terminating sanctions and for disqualification in this case of Mr. Dandar?

A I don’t know. I don’t remember.

Q Well, did you have a copy of the motion when you prepared this affidavit?

A I did not.

Q Had you — did Mr. Dandar ever provide you with a

979

copy of the motion?

A As I sit here today, I can’t say that he did.

THE COURT: He may have. You are not saying he didn’t, either, right?

THE WITNESS: No, I don’t — terminating sanctions? No, I don’t think I have seen that thing.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And how did you find out that there was — that there had been a motion filed to dismiss this lawsuit as a result of allegations of misconduct and to disqualify Mr. Dandar?

A When it came over to this courtroom, I think it was here the first day because I had been a sequestered witness from Judge Baird’s court, you know, where this thing started. Then when it came over here, I was able to appear
in court the first day. And I was here for it.

Q Mr. Dandar asked you to prepare an affidavit in response to the motion for sanctions?

A Mmm, no, Mr. Weinberg. This is something that I had to sit down and do. It’s not anything I could keep carrying on in my head. I knew that I would have to sit down and write about this.

Q Now, these notes that are at the back of this, that is April 14th, 2002. You see that, correct?

980

A Yes.

Q Had you already started writing your affidavit as of April 14, 2002?

A No. Because this is the day that I met with Mr. Dandar, Mr. Lirot, then later on that evening met with Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Minton.

Q So it was sometime —

A But, you know, this was just like in case anything happens to me where I don’t appear again, at least this would be written.

Q So the affidavit was written sometime between April 14 — written and completed, obviously, sometime between April 14 and May 1?

A Correct.

Q Now, you attended — I think you testified — the April 9, 2002 hearing before Judge Baird where Mr. Minton testified, purged himself, with regard to his contempt? In other words, purged himself of perjury?

A I —

Q Do you understand that concept?

A You know, I guess that is one way to look at it.But the way I describe it in my affidavit, he got up and lied to save his own skin.

Q And you were there?

A Yes, just for a very short amount of time. And

981

I — and I covered that really extensively here. The first lie I heard, I got up, I was out the door.

Q And that is when you got really angry at Mr. Minton for the first time?

A I wouldn’t say that. No. I was more upset by the situation. I — I didn’t have anger directed at Mr. Minton.

I mean, I was upset about what he did but, you know, this is my friend. We have been watching these videos. You see we had a close relationship. So it wasn’t like I want to do something to him. I was angry what he had done.

Q Now, it’s your testimony that weeks before that Mr. Minton had told you, before he ever met with Mike Rinder and Sandy Rosen at the end of March, he told you that he had been told that the Church already had his $500,000 check?

A No. I gave testimony about this. I’ll try to answer it as best I can. And I think it is covered here in the very beginning of this affidavit of when all of that talk had started.

Yes, Page 3 of the same affidavit, Paragraph 9, if you go to Line 28, it says: “Bob said there was a problem with some checks he had given to Ken Dandar. Somebody is going to die,” on and on.

Q All right. But there is nowhere in this affidavit where you say that Mr. Rinder or the Church of Scientology

982

had the $500,000 check prior to the meetings in New York, or even at the meetings in New York, correct? You don’t say that in the affidavit, do you?

A Correct.

Q Did Mr. Minton tell you in this — at any point that his name didn’t appear on the $500,000 check?

A Yes.

Q And you first learned that when?

A That Mr. Minton’s name wasn’t on the check? I think I learned that — you know, I’m not going to speculate. I’m not sure when I learned that.

Q Well, did you learn it at or about the time that Mr. Minton gave the check to Mr. Dandar?

A No, I did not. I wasn’t present when he gave the check to Dandar. You are talking about the $500,000 check?

Q That is the one I asked you about.

A Okay. Well, that particular check I — I think I’ve given testimony concerning the fact that, you know, he took us to the top of the parking garage and told us about this. I’d never seen anything physically with my eyes.

Q Now, where in the affidavit do you talk about the parking garage? Can you show us?

A Mmm, I meant my testimony. Not in here, in the —

Q But is it — didn’t you address it in your affidavit?

983

A I may have. Let me see.

Q Look at Page 11 at the top.

A Okay.

Q You see where you say, “I reminded them of an incident that happened in August 2001 –”

A Yes.

Q “– where Bob said the case was costing too much and Ken had to cut costs. Part of the cost-cutting was to not pay Mr. Garko until the case was over. Bob invited me and Stacy Brooks to the top level of a parking structure
directly across the street from the LMT to make sure there was no illegal surveillance going on, and he said Ken is getting $500,000 and that was all he was going to get and it was a big secret and we were not to tell anyone about it.”

Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q So your most recent sworn affidavit, May 1 of 2002, you said that this alleged incident in the garage took place in August of 2001, not in May of 2000. That is what you say. Right?

A I’m completely confused.

Q Well, look at it again then.

A Okay. Oh, 2001. Yes, that is an error. It was 2000. That is an obvious error. This happened in August of 2000 when the check was issued. Right?

984

Q No.

A Okay.

Q That is not right. May 1, 2000.

A The $500,000 check?

Q Yes.

A Okay. Sorry. I didn’t remember it like that. I didn’t have the check at my convenience to have that date there. I did the best I could.

Q Well, do you think it is important to be accurate in your declarations, sworn testimony, sworn affidavits?

A Yes, I do.

Q And you are very specific in this reference I just read to you about the circumstances where this alleged conversation took place when Mr. Minton was pulling back in August when we all know that the LMT was about to shut down. That is what you said. Right?

A No.

Q You — we just read it, “Part of the cost-cutting,” that is what you’re talking about?

A What does that have to do with the Lisa McPherson — LMT? I mean —

Q It’s that you described this very vivid incident on the garage in the context of the August 2001 time period when Mr. Minton is cutting back. That is how you describe it. That is how you date it. Correct?

985

A Okay. That is an error. I thought this $500,000 check happened in 2000. Am I wrong about that?

THE COURT: No. You are not wrong.

THE WITNESS: Oh.

THE COURT: It was 2000. But what you said was August.

THE WITNESS: It was not my intention to commit perjury by making a typographical error, if that is what you want to ask me about this, and you pointed it out. No one else did. You know, I’m sorry.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, if you said May of 2001, maybe I would understand. But it says August of 2001. So where is the typographical error here?

A Because the check was given to Mr. Dandar when?

In 2000, is that right?

Q The testimony is May of 2000.

A Okay. Well, you know, beat me for making a typographical error. I may not have the exact date right. But the incident is correct.

Q So the incident when Mr. Dandar was given the $500,000 check was at the same time that Mr. Minton had decided not to fund the case anymore and to cut back? Because that is what this says.

A Mr. Minton had — well, you know, I stand by this

986

testimony, whatever it says, with the exception of this typographical error that you correctly point out.

And I think I explained this a little bit yesterday — or whatever day it was — when, you know, they were doing the accident reconstruction, jury surveys. I mean, the costs were mounting. And he was concerned.

Q Who was concerned?

A Mr. Minton.

Q He was concerned about the costs in the Lisa McPherson lawsuit?

A Correct.

Q And so what does that have to do with you dating the $500,000 check when he was concerned about the mounting costs of the Lisa McPherson lawsuit?

A You know, I’m just totally confused. I don’t know where we’re going with this.

Q Well, where we’re going —

A I made a mistake here. I said — I said 2001. I should have said 2000.

Q You said August and you should have said May. And then you should have said, instead of it was at the time that Mr. Minton was cutting back, it was actually the time when he was funding the lawsuit.

Other than that, you didn’t make any mistakes. Right?

987

A Well, beat me for making a mistake. But, Mmm —

THE COURT: Well, what page is this on, again?

MR. WEINBERG: It’s on Page 11.

THE WITNESS: 11.

MR. WEINBERG: At the top.

THE COURT: I have got it.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, it’s not that I want to beat you for making a mistake. But is it important to you that your sworn testimony is accurate, or not?

A That is the second time you asked me that. And, yes, I have the same answer. Yes, it is. I made a mistake.

Q Well, do you think you might have made some other mistakes in your sworn testimony, whether it is in court here or in this affidavit or the August 20 affidavit or the other affidavits that you filed?

A Mr. Weinberg, I think I’m doing the best that I can to bring out this testimony into this hearing.

Q Now, after you got angry when you saw Mr. Minton for a short time testify on April 9, 2002, you, a few days later, met with him and Ms. Brooks at the Adam’s Mark Hotel?

A Yes.

Q And that was on or about April 12th?

A Approximately. Yes.

Q You had dinner?

988

A Yes.

Q And you-all talked about ending the fight against Scientology?

A We talked about committing perjury on behalf of Scientology.

Q Did Mr. Minton tell you that he was relieved because he was finally — he was finally going to be telling the truth and not perjuring himself anymore? Did he tell you that?

A Absolutely not. He told me he didn’t feel good about it, he still wasn’t certain about it, that it was the right thing to do.

He felt horrible about what was going to happen — or the charges that were going to happen to Mr. Dandar.

Q Now —

A He had a conscience about it.

Q Now, when Mr. Minton told you, you say, in March of 2002, that the Church already had this $500,000 check, did you pick up — and it was going to cause — I guess you said it was going to cause him problems, right?

A Yes.

Q He said it was going to cause Mr. Dandar problems, right?

A Cause him problems. He didn’t say Mr. Dandar. He said it was going to cause him problems.

989

Q Because he was going to have to lie about it, is that what he said?

A No. Because he had already lied about it.

Q All right. Now, did you pick up the phone then, given your concern, and call up Mr. Dandar and say,

“Ken — Mr. Dandar, Bob Minton told me that the Church has this $500,000 check and he perjured himself in your lawsuit and it’s a problem”?

Did you do that?

A No.

Q Why not?

A Well, Mr. Rosen — why do I want to call you Mr. Rosen?

THE COURT: It is late in the day.

THE WITNESS: It is late in the day.

A Mr. Weinberg —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q We’re both Sandys but he’s a lot taller than I am.

A Yes, that is true.

Why didn’t I immediately call Mr. Dandar?

Q Why didn’t you call Mr. Dandar?

A Because I thought that there was actually something that I could do to — you know, to encourage Mr. Minton to not go down this road. I mean, they’re busy trying to drag me down this road. I’m busy trying to tell

990

them, “Don’t do it. Don’t go down there.”

Q Did it concern you Mr. Minton was telling you he had already perjured himself in this lawsuit? That is what you just said he told you. That was a problem. Right?

A The problem was that that check surfaced. There was some problem about where it came from. Mmm, I personally don’t know his deposition testimony or his — his testimony that he had given in the courts, what he had said
about that. I don’t know that today. I haven’t read any of that stuff.

But, you know, I described the situation where a man is on the phone, crying uncontrollably, very upset. You know, there was a lot about this that didn’t make sense.

And I’m sorry I couldn’t have been more rational about it to ask a question such as that.

Q After the meeting, dinner, whatever it was, on April 12 at the Adam’s Mark, the next time you met with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton was at the Radisson on Sand Key a couple of days later on April 14, is that right?

A I believe I met with them on a Saturday. If I’m right, I met with them at the Adam’s Mark. And the next day I met with them at the Radisson.

Q So whatever the Saturday is, the 12th, 13th, then the next day you went back to the Radisson?

A A Sunday.

991

Q And that is the last meeting you had with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks?

A Correct.

Q That is the day you went to the Radisson is the day that you prepared these notes. Right?

A Earlier that day I prepared these notes.

Q All right. So when you actually went to meet at the Radisson with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks, you had already sat down with Mr. Dandar and Mr. Lirot. And who else?

A You know, my girlfriend was there.

Q Was anybody else there?

A Mr. Haverty.

Q Anybody else there?

A Not that I specifically recall.

Q Was Miss Greenway there?

A I don’t know. I don’t think so.

Q You had already sat down with Mr. Dandar and Mr. Lirot and Mr. Haverty?

A No. That is incorrect. I only spoke to Mr. Dandar about this. I pulled him aside and spoke to him about that specifically.

Q So when you said you met with Mr. Lirot, you didn’t really meet with Mr. Lirot, you only met with Mr. Dandar?

A That was the first time I had ever met Mr. Lirot.

992

Q Can you just answer that question? You didn’t meet with Mr. Lirot, you just met with Mr. Dandar to tell him your concerns, right?

A Correct. And then at the end of that, toward the end of that meeting, I shared some things with Mr. Lirot about it.

Q All right. And is there a particular reason why you met Mr. Dandar at a mall, as opposed to his office?

A Yes. Because I have a continuing concern that my house is electronically bugged by Scientology for illegal surveillance purposes. And I wanted to be in a place where I felt secure in not having that concern.

Q Well, you didn’t have the meeting at your house.

A Correct.

Q My question was why didn’t you have the meeting at Mr. Dandar’s office?

A Because his air-conditioning doesn’t work on the weekend and it is very hot in there. You know, they turn it off. He’s in a building where they turn the air-conditioning off — you know, it’s like a 9-to-5 kind of place. At 5 o’clock, boom, it starts getting hot. On the weekend they don’t turn it on because there is no one in the office, unless you want to pay $25 an hour.

Q So it was his suggestion you meet in the mall?

A Yes.

993

Q Was there a particular place in the mall where you met?

A We were at the International Plaza at some lounge.

I don’t remember the name of it.

Q Just sitting at a table?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Counsel, please. Please. Move into something —

MR. WEINBERG: I will. I will.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Your testimony is, I think, that you didn’t call Mr. Dandar to set up this meeting.

A Correct.

Q You called Frank Oliver, one of the people that was connected with the Lisa McPherson Trust, to set up the meeting with Mr. Dandar. Right?

A Correct.

Q Now, Frank Oliver lives in Miami?

A Correct.

Q Frank Oliver, as far as I know, has never been a consultant or expert for Mr. Dandar. Is that right?

A You would have to ask him that. You know —

Q Do you know from your experience?

A No. I do not know.

Q And you called — you have had dozens of phone

994

conversations with Mr. Dandar over the years. Correct?

A Hundreds.

Q Right. And we have your phone records in evidence from the LMT.

A Right.

Q There are hundreds of phone calls. Is that right?

A Well —

Q In other words —

A Well —

Q You know his number?

A Yes.

Q Why didn’t you pick up the phone and call him?

A I’ll state it again. I was at home using my home phone. I didn’t want to call him because of those concerns.
I called somebody else.

THE COURT: Was there concern that Mr. Dandar’s phone was bugged, as well? Or not? You did not have that concern.

THE WITNESS: No, I didn’t have that concern.

THE COURT: So the concern you had was your phone was bugged at your house?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q So — and you picked Mr. Oliver because? Why?

A I trust him. He’s my friend.

995

Q So from your phone — which you had a concern was bugged — you called Mr. Oliver and said, “I really need you to call Mr. Dandar and set up a meeting with me”?

A No. “Ask him to call me because I want to help him.”

Q Asked who to call you?

A Mr. Dandar.

Q Call you where?

A I called Mr. Oliver and asked him to please have Mr. Dandar call me because I want to help him.

Q Okay. So doesn’t that still concern you, if your phones were bugged, if Mr. Dandar was going to call you?

A I didn’t want to have a long, protracted conversation with Mr. Dandar on my phone specifically about what I wanted to talk to him about.

Q Well, you could have just picked up the phone, called him and said, “I don’t want to have a long, protracted conversation with you over the phone, let’s have a meeting”?

A No, I could have done that. And if I was a wasp, I could have flown away. Where is this going?

Q But you didn’t do that?

A No.

THE COURT: Is there some relevance to that?

Because if there isn’t, I wish you would move on.

996

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll go on. Mr. Oliver is the next witness. And, you know, I —

THE COURT: Mr. Oliver may or may not be the witness.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, Mr. Dandar told me he was the next witness.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And did you have any kind of conversation with Mr. Oliver, other than to ask him to tell Mr. Dandar to call you?

A No.

Q So you didn’t tell Mr. Oliver the details of what was going on?

A No.

Q You didn’t tell anybody else the details of what was going on other than Mr. Dandar?

A Incorrect. I told Denis deVlaming. Denis deVlaming’s brother.

THE COURT: Some agent — I mean, come on.

We’ve been through this testimony.

MR. WEINBERG: I know. Just names.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I mean, there was no nobody else other than what you testified to?

997

THE COURT: That you can remember, Mr. Prince, at 4:40 in the afternoon —

A Correct.

THE COURT: — when you have been on the stand all day.

A Yes, that is correct, Mr. Weinberg.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you testified that you went to the FDLE — to FDLE Agent Strope. Correct?

A Correct.

Q Now, Agent Strope is the — one of the two law enforcement people that were the principal investigators of the criminal investigation of the Church of Scientology. Correct? You knew that?

A Yes.

Q And you had had meetings with Agent Strope over the years?

A I would say that is correct.

Q And what kind of meetings had you had with Agent Strope over the years in your role as either LMT’s VP or trial consultant for Ken Dandar?

MR. DANDAR: Objection. Outside the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled. What is a trial VP?

MR. WEINBERG: I said VP of LMT or a trial consultant.

998

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q My question is —

MR. LIEBERMAN: It’s getting late.

THE COURT: It’s getting late. Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: And I know the hour.

THE COURT: Well, if you come to a nice little stopping point, we’ll stop. But whatever this is all about, you met with Agent Strope. What is it you want to know about that?

MR. WEINBERG: He said he met with him over the years.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: What I want to know is, you know — you know, what was the — the —

THE COURT: I’m not going — you can ask him about the conversation that he had about whatever is going on in this hearing.

But as far as what he talked to Agent Strope about over the years, that is outside of the scope and I’m not going to let you go there.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, then —

THE COURT: I’m not letting you go there.

Finish up.

MR. WEINBERG: Do you think maybe we can stop

999

now and just go to —

THE COURT: No. Finish with Agent Strope. I don’t care if it takes until six o’clock. Then we’re going to stop.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you met with Agent Strope where?

A In his office downtown Clearwater.

Q And you — was anybody else with you?

A No.

Q Was anybody else with him?

A No.

Q Did he record the conversation?

A He recorded it inasmuch as he took copious notes as I spoke.

THE COURT: Recording means did he put a tape recording on?

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor, nothing electronic.

THE COURT: That is what he means when he says recording. If you don’t understand what somebody says, ask.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you know if he filed a report with regard to

1000

what you discussed with him?

A I do not.

Q Did he — did he ask to — did you have any — did you reach any agreements with him with regard to cooperation?

A I specifically asked him, “Based on the information — ” I said “– this looks like racketeering to me, it looks like RICO, criminal activity that starts in New York, continues in New Hampshire and carries on down here in Florida.”

And I briefed him on the fact that they’re calling me — you know, I wanted — when I went to deVlaming,

“Please give me a wire so that you can hear what these people are saying,” you know. You don’t — “I don’t even want you to hear it from me. Please give me a wire so you can hear what they’re saying.”

And he told me that —

Q “He” being DeVlaming? Or “he” being Strope?

A Mr. Strope — Mr. Lee Strope. He told me that he would see what he could do, but — Mmm — you know, he was — he was — he was pretty upset about what had happened himself, you know, when I told him this because, again, Mr. Strope and I do have a relationship.

But he — that is when he gave me that message to give to Mr. Minton.

1001

Q Well, let’s — one thing at a time.

A Okay.

Q Did he wire you up?

A No.

Q Did he — did he ask you to report back to him?

A No.

Q Did you have any further conversations with him?

A No — well, I take that back. I’m sorry. He came to Judge Baird’s hearing. I believe he was there for a short time. And we made casual conversation. It was obvious that this thing was going to be protracted and no decision was going to be made any time soon about any type of perjury so he said he would be in touch — we would be in touch.

Q And the day that you went to Agent Strope, was what in relation to these notes of — of April 14?

1002

A I do not remember.

Q Well, you obviously went to Agent Strope before you met with — for the last time — Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks?

A That is incorrect. And that is my fault because I mixed it up, speaking about DeVlaming, when you were asking me specifically about Mr. Strope, because it was with Mr. DeVlaming that I asked him to give me a federal agent,
not a local person, that would be willing to put a wire on me, because, you know — but by the time I met with Mr. Strope, the opportunity was passed.

THE COURT: You met with Strope after. That is not the person you met with when Denis deVlaming or Doug DeVlaming or whenever somebody sent you to see somebody?

THE WITNESS: Douglas DeVlaming said he would do the contact himself. He contacted the agent, explained the situation to him, then he called me and told me what the federal agent told him.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Right. Well, that was a federal agent. You never met with a federal agent, right?

A Personally, no.

Q So that is what Mr. DeVlaming was doing?

A Douglas DeVlaming.

1003

Q But at the suggestion of Mr. Emmons or Mr. Dandar, you are the one that initiated the contact with Agent Strope of the FDLE. Correct?

A Well, you know, that is not the way you said it, Mr. Weinberg. You said who asked you to go. I said it was either Mr. Dandar or it was Mr. Emmons. Now you are saying I arranged it and somehow — you know, one of the two persons, Mr. Emmons or Mr. Dandar, arranged or contacted Mr. Strope and arranged for me to meet with him.

Q The way we started was I was just trying to date it. It was sometime before the April 14 last meeting with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks. Correct?

A Incorrect.

Q So you went to Agent Strope after you had had your last meeting with Ms. Brooks and — and — and Mr. Minton?

A Correct.

Q You wanted Agent Strope to make you an informant?

A No. I wanted Agent Strope to do what he could to talk to someone on a federal level to deal with this problem, because in my mind it was a federal crime. I asked him about that.

And he — you know, he said, “If what you are saying is true, it is a federal crime.”

I didn’t want to fool around with the Florida folks. I wanted something federal, because it happened in

1004

New York, it happened in New Hampshire, and it happened here in Clearwater.

Q At the time that this was going on, you meeting with Agent Strope, did you know that Mr. Minton had a lawyer with regard to these matters?

A Oh, I think it was Mr. Howie, wasn’t it? Well, he had a couple lawyers. Mr. Howie. Mr. Jonas.

Q And it’s your testimony that Agent Strope told you, if not instructed you, to deliver a message to Mr. Minton?

THE COURT: He already testified to that.

A Correct.

THE COURT: Asked and answered.

A Correct.

THE COURT: I believe I asked the question the second time. So we really don’t need it for the third time.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: The testimony is what it is.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And you delivered the message?

A Yes, I did — well, as I testified, my fiancee delivered the message. She read it to him. I wrote it down on a piece of paper. She read it to him over the phone.

MR. WEINBERG: That is a good stopping point.

1005

THE COURT: Okay. Then we’re done for the day.

And we will start tomorrow at —

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: We’ll start tomorrow at nine.

We’ll be in recess.

MR. WEINBERG: I should tell Mr. Dandar, I don’t have very much more with Mr. Prince, so he needs to be ready for the next witness.

MR. DANDAR: How much more?

THE COURT: Have your witness here in the morning.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I’m handing over to the defense my response to the request to produce.

THE COURT: I don’t have to get into that unless you-all don’t get together on it.

Requests to produce normally don’t require the Court.

MR. DANDAR: I just wanted to file it with the clerk.

THE COURT: We’re in recess until 9 o’clock.

Good night.

(WHEREUPON, Court is adjourned at 4:55 p.m.)

______________________________________

1006

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

THE COURT: I think that probably you have been advised Mr. Minton needs a lawyer in this proceeding and, therefore, we welcome you. But you have no ability to object in this particular proceeding.

MR. ROSS: I understand, your Honor.

THE COURT: You understand you may hear some very weird testimony as far as some strange evidentiary rulings. But this is a strange hearing and sort of the rules of evidence — we’re going to deal with that after the hearing.

MR. ROSS: I understand.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Just give me a minute, your Honor.

THE COURT: I will. I will ask Mr. Dandar, while you are doing that, did you have a chance to E-Mail Mr. Henson?

MR. DANDAR: Yes, I did. And he E-mailed me back and said, “Can you find me a lawyer, is it worth it?” I said no, both questions.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, I notified Mr. Hill’s secretary that Mr. Rosen would not be called. And I should have an order here on the pro hac vice, if it is not by the morning break, by noontime.

THE COURT: All right. Fine.

MR. LIEBERMAN: I would just like to inquire, does that mean Mr. Henson is abandoning his motion?

725

THE COURT: No, I think what that means, he will not be represented. And I suspect you should — as I said, let me have time to read it. I may be able to rule on your motion without any argument.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Very good.

THE COURT: But, frankly, I want to still leave it scheduled for hearing, because he may get somebody to appear. And we’ll deal with it at the scheduled time. I would not assume that is an abandonment.

MR. LIEBERMAN: All right.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: All right? I’m ready.

THE COURT: You may proceed.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince, you — I think you said on your direct testimony — but let me go over it again — you have testified previously as a witness under oath in either trial testimony or deposition testimony. Is that right?

A In this — in this case, yes, I have.

Q In other cases, as well. Correct?

A Yes, I have.

Q And — and is it your testimony that at all times

726

in those other cases when you were under oath, that you testified truthfully?

A Yes, it is.

Q Okay. Now, yesterday — or the day before, whenever it was — you testified that you had participated in the destruction of PC folders, particularly Mr. Wollersheim’s PC folder which he said was pulped, I believe, while you were at RTC?

A Correct.

Q Now, you remember testifying as a witness in 1989 in the lawsuit Religious Technology versus Joseph Yanny?

A I do not.

Q You don’t remember that?

A No, I do not.

THE COURT: I don’t even remember hearing about that case. That is a new one for me.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I thought you testified, by the way, on your direct, that you had been a witness in that case, in fact, that while you were in Scientology, you were actually a witness in that case.

A No. While I was in Scientology I said I was a witness in the Wollersheim 4 case, specifically concerning the Advanced ability Center, David Mayo.

MR. WEINBERG: Could I approach the witness,

727

your Honor?

THE COURT: You may.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Let me show you a transcript of your deposition taken in Los Angeles, California on September 11, 1989 and ask you if you can identify that transcript and identify that as your testimony on that day under oath, and at the end you’ll see an errata sheet which I believe also has your signature on it.

A What is this on? On September ’89? Okay.

Then —

Q At the end is an errata sheet. Do you see that?

A Uh-huh.

Q And you see that you — do you recognize your signature on there dated —

A 12 December, ’89. Yes, I do.

Q Obviously — I’ll leave this here because I have a few questions on it. Obviously you testified as a witness in 1989 and were given the opportunity to review that testimony and make corrections. Correct?

A I don’t — Mmm — recall that, Mr. Weinberg, but since I did sign the errata sheet, I’ll say okay.

MR. DANDAR: I would like to have a copy of that, Judge. If they’re going to start using it, pulling things out of context, I would like to be

MR. DANDAR: We all do, we pull something out and say, “Did you say this?”

THE COURT: If you are going to use a deposition and he doesn’t have a copy of it, he ought to have a copy of it.

MR. WEINBERG: Do we have an extra copy of it?

Do we have copies of these?

THE COURT: I tell you what, go ahead and use it and then get him a copy before Mr. Dandar —

Mr. Dandar, please listen if you care, maybe you don’t care. If you care, I’ll have them provide you a copy of the deposition before your redirect.

MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

THE COURT: If anything was pulled out of context, you can correct it.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Thank you.

MR. WEINBERG: Now, in addition —

THE COURT: You-all provide him a copy.

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, in addition to your testimony in this proceeding that you had participated in the destruction of

729

PC folders, you also, in your August 20, 1999 affidavit, that is the — the affidavit where you made the accusation about David Miscavige, in that affidavit, in Paragraph 22 you swore that you had participated in the destruction of Wollersheim’s PC folder. Correct?

A Correct.

Q Now, if you will turn, Mr. Prince — when I get the right folder here — to Page 153 of your Yanny deposition. You find Page 153?

A Mmm, just about. I have it here.

Q I want you to read Line 5, 6 and 7.

“Question: Were you ever involved in the destruction of PC folders?

“Answer. No.”

Okay. That was your sworn testimony then, correct?

A Yes, it was.

Q And when you go to that errata sheet, does it say anything about you making any mistakes with regard to that sworn answer where you swore under oath in 1989 that you had not been involved in the destruction of PC folders?

A Mr. — you know, I don’t recall this errata sheet, to answer the question that quickly. I don’t even recall the errata sheet.

THE COURT: The real question is that was your

730

testimony on that date, is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, this was the testimony I had given on that date.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And you previously testified that all your prior sworn testimony was true. Correct?

A Correct.

Q So you lied here in court when you said that you had participated in PC folders being destroyed?

A Well, you know, I have to at least look at a couple pages earlier here to kind of get an idea what was going on here to orient myself to 1989.

Q Look at a couple pages earlier.

THE COURT: Might I just ask, where he was reading, was he testifying for plaintiff, or defendant?

MR. WEINBERG: He was testifying for the Church. For RTC.

A Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q That was certainly — you wouldn’t have had a recollection problem back in 1989, would you, as to what had occurred a year or so or two or three before that, as opposed to 2002, talking about things that supposedly happened?

731

A Mmm, Mr. Weinberg, I — I don’t think I would have had a recollection problem, but maybe I would have had a problem with coercion.

Q Let’s see now —

A Or — or manipulation.

Q Excuse me. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to interrupt.

A Or manipulation. This was a very bad time for me. This was shortly — well, let’s see, this was a couple years after I had been away from any position of authority. I was still being asked to — Mmm — participate in the courts, for whatever reason, God only knows. And I was not in a very good state of mind.

Q Well, I thought you said you were relieved yesterday to leave your post at RTC and that you were in a better state of mind as a result of being relieved and not having to do all those things that you swore yesterday and the day before that you had participated in.

A Certainly in that regard, Mr. Weinberg, I was relieved. But I didn’t have a lot of direction for my life.

I think I was pretty suicidal at that point. And I had written about that, as well.

Q All right. So you started saying these things about destroying PC folders after people started paying you,like Mr. Minton and Mr. Leipold and through Mr. Dandar, that

732

is when you started saying these things, not when you weren’t being paid.

A No, Mr. Weinberg, quite the contrary. I — this came out because I decided that it was no longer an operating principle of mine that the greatest good is for Scientology. I kind of — you know, just kind of got away from that.

Q So it’s a principle now the greatest good for Jesse Prince, whoever will put the money in your pocket, that is what you’ll say?

A No, Mr. Weinberg, the greatest good is the truth and justice and equity.

Q All right. So what you’re saying, just so I get this right, you lied back in 1989?

A Yes — yes. According to these documents, I lied on behalf of Scientology.

Q All right. And you lied in — I’ll just refresh your recollection about being asked about this before — do you remember giving a deposition in this case when — when I deposed you?

A I think you and I have been at it a time or two.

Q And do you remember that I asked you the questions on Page — I’ll refer now to Page 465 of your deposition of — of November 17, November 18, 1999.

“Question: Now, when you testified — how many

733

times have you testified in your entire career, life?

“Answer: In a courtroom or deposition setting?

“Question: Both.

“Answer: Possibly five.

“Question: All right, and each time you testified, whether in deposition or in court, you were under oath, right?

“Answer: Correct.

“You raised your hand and swore to tell the truth.

“Answer: Correct.

“Question: Nothing but the truth, right?

“Answer: Correct.

“And you testified truthfully on those five occasions.

“Answer: Correct.

“Question: You didn’t perjure yourself.

“Answer: Correct.

“Question: So if you were asked the questions in a deposition that I asked and those were your answers then when you gave those answers, it is your testimony that they were truthful answers, correct?

“Answer: Well, you know, yeah, okay. I’ll say yeah, okay, yeah.”

Then later in the deposition — do you remember being asked those questions and giving those answers?

734

A No, I do not, Mr. Weinberg.

Q Do you remember being asked on Page 469 of your deposition two years ago, “You testified in the Yanny case we’ve already talked about, was that deposition and trial or just deposition?

“Answer: I believe it was just deposition. And again, I was never afforded the opportunity — well, no, I’m sorry, I’ll answer the direct question, I won’t tell stories. Yes.”

Do you remember being asked that question and giving that answer?

A No, Mr. Weinberg. But if it’s there, then I believe it.

Q So apparently three years ago when we took your deposition you remembered the Yanny case testimony but today you don’t?

A I — Mr. Weinberg, I think that is a bit of mischaracterization to say I would have remembered the Yanny testimony. You know, this document here is a couple hundred pages long. I — I don’t think any of us are capable of remembering a couple hundred pages of something that happened ten years ago.

Q Is there a particular reason why, in all these accusations you made against Scientology, you didn’t say,

“And they told me to perjure myself in 1989 in the Yanny

735

deposition”? Why didn’t you do that?

A Well, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Weinberg, again, like I — I was damaged goods during that time. I had gone through a lot of stress, a lot of — Mmm — decisions to change my life. Mmm, didn’t have certain — you know, a certainty on where I was going with my life. I felt pretty hopeless.

But let’s talk about the perjury here since this is the subject here. What I have testified to before concerning preclear folder destruction is the fact that because these preclear folders of Mr. Wollersheim were being asked to be produced and ultimately the whole folders were turned over, the order to destroy the folders came from Mr. Miscavige with Mr. Rathbun present, myself, Vicki Aznaran. It became my responsibility to report when that fact was done.

I myself was not the person that destroyed the preclear folders or had — or pulped them. Rick Aznaran is the person, along with another current Office of Special Affairs, Charlie Earl, rented a truck, took these folders; Vicki Aznaran — Lawrence Wollersheim, possibly Bill Franks, Gerry Armstrong and others took them to the recycling plant, and when Mr. Aznaran came back, he showed me a liquid bottle with paper on — with the pulp paper on the bottom.

So technically did I know about it? Yes.

736

Technically did I do it? No.

Q Oh, I see.

A But I sanctioned it and I went along with it.

Q So perjury — the question was: “Were you ever involved in the destruction of PC folders?

“Answer: No.”

That is not perjury because you have somehow justified in your mind that you really weren’t involved because you didn’t actually pull the switch? Is that what you’re saying?

A No, I’m saying that I’m not the person that actually did it myself, but I knew about it. And reported about it.

Q Is that —

A I didn’t stop it. So, you know, the fact of the matter is I won’t beat around the bush with you, Mr. Weinberg. Right here I was not being truthful.

Q Now, did somebody tell you to perjure yourself?

Is this something that somebody told you to do? Or you just did this on your own?

A No, I was told to do it. Mr. Earle Cooley, who was lead counsel for the Church of Scientology at the time, wanted me to do it. Mr. Rathbun, who was — was again and always responsible for church legal, wanted me to do it.

Mmm, I was being a good Scientologist and protecting

737

Scientology.

Q That is amazing. So when this started out you didn’t have any recollection of the Yanny deposition, you don’t remember having even signed the errata sheet, and now you have this clear recollection that — that Mr. Cooley, a lawyer who is on the board of trustees of Boston College — or Boston University, and Mr. Rathbun told you to lie? Is that what you’re saying now?

A Mr. — Mr. Weinberg, I mean, because we are talking about this, because you have presented me with documentation, we’ve discussed it, I think I do have a mind and I can have some recollection about this. And I’m just telling you what happened here.

Mmm, there are other things that I have written specifically about my relationship with Earle Cooley, and because you have all of those E-Mails, I’m sure you have those in evidence, too. That is not the only thing that I thought was unethical that happened with Mr. Cooley, irrespective of where he sits.

Q So the way it works is, if we can catch you at it and if we can show you a video or show you some testimony where you perjured yourself, then it’s an indiscretion, essentially, you sort of caught me. Is that the way it works?

MR. DANDAR: Objection, argumentative.

738

THE COURT: Sustained.

A Mmm —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q It was sustained, Mr. Prince.

THE COURT: You don’t have to answer the question.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you said your life was hopeless?

A Correct.

Q When was this deposition, 1989?

A Correct.

Q But having been hopeless, you stayed another three years?

A I stayed another five years after my life was pretty much hopeless. You know, I fell into the hopelessness — you know, right in 1987 when that whole thing happened I was ready to leave Scientology at that point. All I wanted to do was walk away. I had to escape to leave because I was in the RPF, walking through the desert, on and on, and I’m sure you don’t want to hear that story.

Q That story? Is that what you said? Do I want to hear the story?

A Let’s please maintain civility here, Mr. Weinberg.

Q All right, I asked you —

739

A I’m trying to explain this to you. I had escaped. I had helped Vicki Aznaran escape. We were being kept in the RPF in a — behind a — Soboba Indian Reservation in the most horrid conditions. All I wanted to do was walk away. I had to threaten to go to the press, threaten to go to the police, the same thing I suspect Lisa had to do when she tried to leave, as well.

And ultimately because the woman that I was married to, who had no idea what I had been involved in, what my position really was in the Church of Scientology, what my participation was, it came down to Mr. Mithoff, Mr. Miscavige specifically talking to my wife and telling her what a horrible person I was and that I’m blowing and I’m psychotic and I’m crazy because I want to leave and this kind of thing.

So then I was faced with even a bigger problem. And my bigger problem was now am I just going to walk out of Scientology and leave this person that I love, that I’m married to, because she hasn’t woke even up, because she doesn’t understand, because I haven’t been with her and let her know what’s going on. And that is kind of a problem in Scientology in and of itself because the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. You are not allowed to talk about your case, you’re not allowed to talk about secret this, secret that. So we had had a breach of

740

communication for many years.

But in my mind at that time I was thinking, you know, I’m not going to desert another person in my life, I’m not going to desert this woman for Scientology. I will sit here with her until she sees what I see. And I was actually, therefore, there for another five years.

And these are points I have written about as well.

I felt almost like an animal, I had no mind, no brain, no will, nothing. And this is what happened to me and I went and did this and it was wrong. And yeah, I did that and you have pointed it out and here we are.

Q Now, in 1989 when you perjured yourself —

A Uh-huh?

Q — according to your testimony now, or didn’t, depending upon whether you perjured yourself in this hearing, you weren’t on the RPF, were you, in 1989? You were working in the Golden Era studio, correct?

A I think in 1989 I was on what is considered — what is called the DPF, the Deck Project Force. The reason I say that is because in 1987 when I was removed from my position and I went to the RPF — Mmm — I think I was there for — until December of ’87.

In December of ’87 I got off the RPF, I started trying to practice auditing again. I did that for some time and really didn’t want to do it anymore.

741

Toward the end of ’88, I believe, a security guard at Golden Era Productions got kind of rough with my wife.

THE COURT: You know, this really doesn’t matter where he was. You weren’t in RPF.

A No, I was in DPF. I wasn’t in Golden Era Productions, I mean, working in the studios, as you suggested. I was actually on the DPF. And this is the same period I did that watch with Mrs. Brooks, Terese or — or Teresita —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q That was in ’88?

A That was in ’88?

Q Yes. You say things were hopeless for you?

Things were hopeless for you in 1997 and 1998, as well, wasn’t it?

A I wouldn’t say that.

Q You filed for bankruptcy and went bankrupt in November of — filed in what, May of ’97, and it was finalized in November of ’97, correct?

A I believe there are documents to that effect that have the correct dates.

Q But — but you went bankrupt in 1997, correct?

A Mmm —

Q Yes, or no?

A Yes, I did. I believe that is correct.

742

Q So you were broke in 1997?

A I filed for bankruptcy in 1997, but I — I wasn’t able to pay my bills adequately in 1997.

Q And except for Mr. Minton coming like an angel from heaven in June of 1998, you didn’t know what you were going to do?

A Utterly and completely false.

Q After Mr. Minton appeared on the scene you then hooked up with Stacy Brooks, you hooked up with Dan Leipold, you hooked up with Ken Dandar, and since that time this is what you have been doing, getting paid to testify, write affidavits and work against Scientology, correct?

A No, that is absolutely incorrect and it is false.

Q Now, let’s go back to the deposition for a moment.

Now, you testified under oath a lot about the GO and OSA and all that. Do you remember that, here in this proceeding? You said you had all this knowledge about the kinds of activities that had gone on. Do you remember that?

A No, I think you are mischaracterizing my earlier testimony. I don’t think that the words Guardian’s Office exited my lips during these proceedings. I have spoke about OSA and I have — I have presented Mr. Hubbard’s eternal words on — on what intelligence is expected to do, what legal is expected to do and some of what public relations is supposed to do. I think that better characterizes —

743

Q Well, let me refresh your recollection, if you remember on June 18 saying, “Question, was there any carryover from the Guardian’s Office to OSA?

“Answer: Yes, there was, there was a carryover of some of the staff and some of the policies. Then you went on to say, “Question, was OSA still Department 20 like the Guardian’s Office was?

You said, “Yes, OSA wanted to make sure they didn’t make the same mistakes as the past Guardian Office was. One of the mistakes was putting in writing and detailing some of the operations.”

A Yes, I did.

Q Do you remember that?

A Yes.

Q Now, turn to Page 149, please, of the Yanny deposition.

A Okay.

Q I want you to read Line 5 through Line 16 — Line 5 through Line 13 — 16, I’m sorry.

A To 16?

Q Yes, just read it out loud.

MR. DANDAR: Objection, that is not the way you do it.

THE COURT: That is true.

A I have read it.

744

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I’ll read it. Did you give — were you asked these questions and give these answers?

MR. DANDAR: Objection, that is not the way you —

THE COURT: Yes, it is the way you do it.

Overruled.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q “You ever heard of the GO?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: What was the GO?

“It was Guardian’s Office.

“Question: And Mary Sue Hubbard was in charge of that for a period of time?

“Answer: I have no knowledge of the Guardian’s Office. I was never associated or affiliated with it in any way.

“Answer (sic): You do know that a number of Guardian’s Office people went to jail?

“Answer: I don’t –”

Then there was objection.

A Okay.

Q Were you asked those questions and give those answers?

A Yes, that is correct.

745

Q And that was true or was that perjury, as well, that you had no knowledge of the Guardian’s Office?

A Well, that was true then and it is true now.

Prior to my association with going to Gilman Hot Springs, I had — you know — you know, I had done protests at the behest of the Guardian’s Office where all Scientologists got together, and I think did a demonstration of the courthouse down there at a point in time on — Hebert would — what they do is they have a thing in Scientology called a call to arms —

Q Really, all I asked you, was that true or not and you said it was true that —

A Okay.

Q Using your words, you had no percipient knowledge —

A Well, I don’t want to play —

Q Can I ask my question first?

A I told you that there was — you know, was some association with the Guardian Office, and I tried to clarify that. So you know, I don’t want to get into word games here where you say, well, you said you never did it but suddenly now you have me picketing at the behest of Scientology. I mean, little activities like that, I mean, I popped out of a coffin across the park doing a skit based on something that —

746

Q I understand, but you waxed eloquent about the GO and how it’s the same — OSA was the same, and under oath here you said you didn’t know, didn’t have information about the GO. You didn’t know anything about it.

A No, I think you are confused on that issue, Mr. Weinberg.

Q Now, do you remember testifying in this proceeding that — that you were — had responsibility for legal, intelligence and PR activities of OSA? Do you remember that?

A Yes.

Q Particularly intelligence activities of OSA, that was your testimony?

THE COURT: Could you define or tell him — I don’t remember, was it here in this hearing?

MR. WEINBERG: That is what I said. I was just reading from his testimony.

THE COURT: Here?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG: Q I’ll read — this is the dirty — when I say dirty, this is the —

THE COURT: Dirty copy, I know.

747

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The dirty copy, but on my Page 71 of the dirty copy, which is obviously not the actual transcript, what it says is, “As I mentioned –” this is your answer — “we used to do the technology side of Scientology. Then there was a separate area, areas that I also had responsibility for.

And those were legal, intelligence and PR activities of OSA which is a separate network in Scientology.”

That was your testimony, right?

A Yes. Yes.

Q Now, I want you to turn, if you will, Mr. Prince,to Page 77, first, of your Yanny depo. While you are looking for it, you were deputy inspector general of RTC, correct?

A Correct.

Q And it was deputy inspector general external was your actual — DIG external, right?

A Right.

Q Did you — if you go to the bottom of the page, Line 22, were you asked this question and did you give this answer.

“Question: Back when you were the DIG external, did you have any responsibility for intelligence?

“Answer: Not particularly.

“Question: Is there a group or subgroup within

748

Scientology organization referred to as Intel?

“Answer: No, not that I know of.

“Question: Has Intel ever been part of your job description?

“Answer: No.

“Have you ever had any responsibility for Intel?

“Answer: No.”

Were you asked those questions and did you give those answers?

A Yes, I did.

Q And was that truthful testimony?

A Yes, it was. And you know, in — inasmuch as it — that it was deceptive testimony because we’ve sat here and we’ve gone over all of these Scientology issues, now that says intelligence action, this, that and other thing, but when the GO was gotten rid of, the section that was called intelligence was no longer called intelligence; it was called the information bureau. And I think if you look at a current organization chart for the Office of Special Affairs, you will find that it says information bureau. It doesn’t say intelligence bureau. But if you look at the materials that the persons are trained on in the information bureau, it is intelligence.

Q It is sort of like your testimony yesterday where I asked you about the picket sign, you know, in front of

749

Mr. Minton’s house and you said you didn’t own a sign?

A You know, I don’t know about that, Mr. —

Q Was that truthful but deceptive testimony, or is that sort of like an example of what you’re talking about?

A I don’t know about that analogy, Mr. Weinberg. I think you are confused on that issue and you are mixing apples and oranges. But I pretty much answered your question with this.

Q All right. So this is truthful but — and so what is — by the way, just so — it’s not perjury when you tell the truth but you are deceptive? In your mind, that is okay?

A Well, you know, I’m —

Q Just answer the question.

A I’m not going to draw a legal conclusions. You are the trained lawyer here. I’m the trained Scientologist.

Q You are the trained witness.

A I can tell you about that. I can’t tell you about the lawyering so much. I can’t explain the law to you. You can explain that to me.

Q Explain to me how you are being truthful when you are being deceptive?

A By the mere fact being deceptive, you are not being totally honest. But then again, as I understand the law, you are not obligated to answer but an exact question,

750

and the exact question here was about intelligence and — and again, I’ll tell you, when the GO was changed, the word “intelligence” was gotten rid of and the word “information” was put in there; information bureau, information department.

So if they would have said information department, I could have answered these questions a little differently.

But I didn’t say, oh, you know, well, they changed intelligence to information because no person wants a witness walking in just blah-blah-blah, blah-blah-blah. Answer the question you are asked and that is it, okay.

THE COURT: Sort of like you are doing now?

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q So why did you use the word “intelligence” when you testified for Mr. Dandar? I just read you the testimony. “In those areas that I was responsible for, legal, intelligence and PR activities of OSA,” why did you use the word “intelligence”?

A Because I was able to take the eternal words of L. Ron Hubbard that had that on there and show it. I used it because that is what the issue says.

Q And by the way, that is acceptable to you to give truthful but deceptive testimony? That is acceptable to you as you sit here as a so-called expert in Scientology?

751

A It is acceptable to me to answer — answer the question that is asked.

Q So I have got to ask the absolutely right question or you can deceive me and there is no problem here? You can deceive me and the Court? And everybody else that is — that is in this room?

A Mmm, well, you know, you can call it deception or you can call it inadequate lawyering. I mean, I don’t know. What do you want to say about it?

Q Well, have you had any of those answers while you have been on the stand, those truthful but deceptive answers? Can you think of a couple where we just missed the question a little bit?

A You know, Mr. Weinberg, I think I’m making a valiant effort here to keep perspective and keep things in perspective. And I think I have gone overboard in explaining my rationale.

THE COURT: The question is, Mr. Prince, is there any time in this hearing you have not told the absolute whole truth, that is what the oath is, the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth?

THE WITNESS: No, there is not.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you testified, I think — correct me if I’m

752

wrong — a number of times that — that Mr. Miscavige was deeply involved in the activities of you and Ms. Aznaran at the RTC and that — and that you and her reported to Mr. Miscavige when you were there. Is that right?

Q Let’s make it clear because that is actually the question I wanted to ask you. You said — you testified under oath you reported to David Miscavige while you were DIG external at RTC?

A I — ultimately, I did report to him, yes.

THE COURT: Frankly, I think he said he reported to Vicki Aznaran.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m just asking him now — we’ll, I’ll read you what he said.

THE COURT: You have to read him what he says because I can’t even remember, myself.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q This is actually the real transcript, Page 342, lines 19 through 25. And this is in response to a question from Mr. Dandar. And you say: “Answer: So you know from

753

the –”

THE COURT: Read the question.

MR. WEINBERG: That is what I’m trying to find.

There was a lot of interruptions.

MR. DANDAR: Well, that is surprising!

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince just starts talking. There was — there was dialogue about the Clearwater Police Department.

THE COURT: Well, let me hear what it is you are wanting to read to him, then we’ll see if he can remember this testimony.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Okay.

“Answer: So you know from the limited time that I was there in Religious Technology Center myself, I know that — you know, there wasn’t much about the Flag Service Organization I didn’t know about and also had responsibilities for to make sure the whole thing ran smoothly, and the person that I reported to was certainly the — ultimately was Mr. Miscavige.”

That is what you said?

A Correct. That doesn’t mean to the exclusion of Mrs. Aznaran who was my direct —

Q No, I didn’t — wasn’t suggesting that.

A Okay.

754

Q Now, if you’ll go to — by the way, did you also report to Marty Rathbun back then?

A Yes. Yes.

Q If you go to Page 52 of the Yanny deposition, please —

A Was that 52, Mr. Weinberg?

Q Yes, 52.

A Okay.

Q Look at Line 15 through 19.

“Question –” were you asked these questions and gave these answers under oath.

“Question: Back in this ’84, ’86 time period did you ever have an occasion to report to Marty Rathbun?

“Answer: No.

“Question: Did you ever report to David Miscavige?

“Answer: No.”

A Right.

Q Were you asked those questions, did you give those answers?

A Yes, I did.

Q Were those truthful answers?

A No, they were not.

Q So you perjured yourself?

A Correct.

755

THE COURT: I honestly don’t want you to use the word “perjury.” Perjury is a term of law.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Lie would be fine.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I have had judges tell me not to use lie because it is inflammatory.

THE COURT: If that were in front of a jury, that may be true, but for me in this particular proceeding perjury is a term of law.

MR. WEINBERG: Fine.

THE COURT: If you say is that a lie, that would be fine.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Was that a lie?

A Yes, it was.

Q And did somebody instruct you to lie?

A Yes. Again, Mr. Earle Cooley, Mr. Rathbun.

Again, I’m being a good Scientologist and I’m protecting Scientology.

Q And you’re not being a good anti-Scientologist as you sit on the stand in this proceeding and write affidavits and stuff like that, correct?

A I’m sorry, I didn’t understand the question.

Q Well, is there a code of ethics for people like you that are part of the anti-Scientology movement?

756

MR. DANDAR: I’ll object to the phrase “Anti-Scientology movement.” I don’t know if that has been established anywhere.

THE COURT: I think you need to save that for another time.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Is there a code of ethics, did you and members of the A team and those people that were carrying the signs for the Lisa McPherson Trust that we saw that video yesterday, was there some code of ethics as to what you guys were going to do when you were under oath?

A Mr. Weinberg, no one carried a sign for the Lisa McPherson Trust. You know, you make it impossible for me to answer these questions when you draw these conclusions and inferences that simply are just not true.

Q Well —

THE COURT: So the question is, was there a code of ethics that you and Mr. Minton and —

MR. WEINBERG: Ms. Brooks.

THE COURT: — Ms. Brooks developed when you were to testify?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: In this proceeding?

THE WITNESS: No. The answer to the question,

757

your Honor, is no.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you have testified again today about the RPF and I believe that on direct — and I’ll read you your testimony if you don’t remember it, but I believe that you have referred to the RPF as being a concentration camp or something like that, correct?

THE COURT: Prison camp.

A Prison camp.

MR. WEINBERG: Actually, in this transcript it says concentration camp on Page 456.

THE COURT: I heard prison camp for sure.

Prison, concentration camp, I guess they’re all the same.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, actually —

THE COURT: They’re not.

MR. WEINBERG: In my mind a concentration camp brings images of Nazi Germany, and a prison camp, you know, we have them in Florida. But —

MR. DANDAR: Well, Japanese had concentration camps in the United States. We had —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m not even going there.

MR. DANDAR: There must be a difference.

THE COURT: Maybe not to this particular witness. He may not — not make a distinction.

758

THE WITNESS: Well, actually, your Honor, I think there is a distinction in that I think the Rehabilitation Project Force is more akin to a concentration camp in that part of the program is to have not — not only to have a mind-altering experience, but to have a total revamping of the way you were before.

THE COURT: Okay. So you refer to it as a concentration camp?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q By the way, did you lose a lot of weight when you were in the RPF?

A Which time?

Q I mean, did you get meals?

A Which time?

Q You said you were in twice, I believe.

A Right. So you mean both times?

THE COURT: Either time.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Either time.

A The first time I lost weight dramatically. I think I got down to 144 pounds because we weren’t allowed to eat regular food, we had to eat fruit and — and protein supplement called Progest. Then we had to run around with

759

plastic suits on our body to, quote/unquote, get the impurities out. This is all we were allowed to eat is fruit and Progest.

Q That was in the ’70s?

A That was ’77.

Q So then in ’87 when, you know, everything came down on you and you got —

A I lost weight there, too, yes.

Q Were you running around drinking protein drinks and wearing sweat suits?

A No, not the second time.

Q Now, you testified that you were — let me quote — “forcibly,” quote/unquote, that is what you said here, “removed from the RTC.” That is what you said on the stand.

A Yes.

Q Do you remember that? Now, when you said forcibly, what — what were you referring to?

A Well, I was referring to a couple of things.

Prior to assuming any position as a board member in the Scientology conglomerate, the one thing that you’re asked to do in order to have this position is to sign an undated resignation.

After signing an undated resignation, then you are allowed to be a corporate officer, on the board of directors

760

or — or some such like that, you know, having to do with corporate matters.

So I was a — on the board of directors of the Religious Technology Center. I was the treasurer. But when I was graced with that position I also at that time had to sign an undated resignation. Again, I was woken up at I guess 5 o’clock in the morning with 12 people in — security guards wearing uniforms like they’re on a mission, and I was told that I was removed, I was shown my undated resignation so that, you know — and this is a legal process. And apparently this is a problem that they had, but I won’t diverge, but this and this, and I was told, “You stand up, you call me sir.”

Miscavige wanted me to do that, and I didn’t want to do it.

So they grabbed me and they started jumping me.

Q All right. That is the gun thing?

A Right.

Q The gun thing?

A Right. We talked about that yesterday.

THE COURT: Are you also talking about the fact your resignation was filled in, is that what you considered part of forcible removal? Or not?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So when you mentioned that, that is also part of your forcibly removed because it was

761

filled in and, therefore, you were removed?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you understood when Scientology reorganized in the early ’80s and created RTC and CSI and a variety of other corporations, you understood that there was a corporate structure then that was very clear and defined in corporate documents, correct?

A Before —

Q You understood that?

A Before or after — I guess — there was a corporate structure before they created RTC, CSI, all these other corporations?

Q No, I said you understood in the early ’80s, the Church of Scientology reorganized with a new corporate structure —

A Right.

Q — including the RTC, CSI, which was the mother church, and all the churches under them. You understood that, right?

A Yes. Yes.

Q And there was a very detailed corporate structure with — with articles of incorporation and various agreements that set forth clearly the corporate way in which various — Scientology would be run, correct?

762

A Correct.

Q And that was the wish and desire of L. Ron Hubbard, who was still alive that that happened, that there be this reorganization of the church?

A You know, I can’t say that that is true. I can’t —

THE COURT: Who would care? The idea there was a corporate reorganization, surely this is going somewhere.

MR. WEINBERG: It is going somewhere.

THE COURT: Get there.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The RTC was composed of a board of directors.

Correct?

A That was part of it, sure.

Q And there were trustees?

A Correct.

Q In fact, there were trustees in every Scientology corporation, correct?

A Well, I came to learn that in 1987. But you are correct.

Q Well, you learned when you joined RTC that there were trustees, there were three trustees?

A No. No. No.

Q Well, what you learned is that the trustees had

763

one function, correct, and that is to — that is to — to name or remove directors. You understood that, didn’t you?

A No, sir.

Q And you were removed in 1987, along with Ms. Aznaran, by the trustees of RTC, one of which was Mr. Miscavige, correct?

A Incorrect. I was removed by one person, only one person’s will, on one person’s authority, and that was Mr. Miscavige.

Q Was he one of the trustees of RTC?

A Yes. And this got explained to me as he was doing this. You know, he — you know, and I guess I was a bit naive, you know, I didn’t know. I wasn’t a corporate person. I’m not trained, you know.

And he explained it to me very well. He said, “Look, I am a trustee. Norman is a trustee.” I think Marty may have been a trustee or Steve Marlowe may have been a trustee. I’m not sure. And he explained to me how it worked.

And he said, “Here is your undated resignation and you have officially resigned and this is how it works and we have the authority to do that.” And at that point I was cognizant of how it worked.

Q Are you saying that for the five years that you were in RTC and for the three or so that you were a board

764

member and, you said, the number two person at RTC, you didn’t know that there were trustees that had the ability to — to remove you?

A Correct.

Q But you are an expert on the corporate structure of Scientology?

A I have never said I am an expert on the corporate structure of Scientology, Mr. Weinberg. I said that I am an expert in the — in the policies, bulletins and issues that are Scientology. That is Scientology.

Q If you go to Page 16 of your deposition —

THE COURT: Which deposition?

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry, the Yanny deposition.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The —

A I’m not quite there.

Q Okay.

A Okay. I’m there.

Q Okay, Line 4, question — were you asked these questions and did you give these answers — and you will see there is one date that is wrong, but it is wrong in the transcript, and I think you — it didn’t affect the question.

“Question — Line 4 were you asked this question, “October of ’83 to March of ’87 you were deputy inspector

765

general for external affairs.

“Answer: That’s right.

“Question: Was Vicki Aznaran your senior during that entire course of time?

“Answer: Yes.

“Question: Were you out at Gilman Hot Springs?

“Answer: Gilman Hot Springs and Los Angeles.

“Question: What was your next position then in March of ’83.”

That would be obviously March of ’87, I think you understand that by your answer. And did you give this answer.

“Answer: Then I went to the RPF for three months, probably three and a half. Then I was an auditor. I was an auditor at Golden Era, the same place at Gilman Hot Springs, for a while.

“Question: For about three and a half months starting in March of ’83 –” but it is ’87 — “you were in the RPF again?

“Answer: Yes.”

Then I’ll skip to Page 17. Top of the page. Line 3 were you asked this question and gave this answer: “What were the circumstances of your transferring from RTC to Golden Era Productions?

“Answer: Well, when I was in RTC I wanted to go to the RPF because I needed more training. I needed — I

766

just needed more skill than I presently had. And that afforded me an opportunity to do that because I could go five hours a day, so I did that and also got auditing, co-audited and life audited, because I audited practically my whole career in Scientology. So I decided to audit for a while.”

Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q Were you asked those questions, did you give those answers?

A Yes, I did.

Q So that was false testimony?

A This was coached testimony by Mr. Earle Cooley, Mr. Rathbun, for the purpose of deposition with Mr. Yanny.

Q So is that a definite category —

THE COURT: That was also false, correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: You were coached by who?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Earle Cooley and Mr. Marty Rathbun.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, that deposition — you were asked questions by whom in that deposition?

A You know, I don’t know. I — I don’t know.

THE COURT: Take a look at the front. It

767

should say who was representing Mr. Yanny. Did you give him the front page?

MR. WEINBERG: I gave him the whole deposition. If I could approach, I think I could show him.

THE COURT: Okay.

A Cummings & White. Is that who it was?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Barry Van Sickle. Do you remember Barry Van Sickle?

A Not really.

Q But do you remember this was a deposition, now that we refreshed your recollection, the questions were being asked by Mr. Yanny’s lawyer, not by Mr. Cooley, the ones we went over.

A Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Just one second, your Honor. I need to move some stuff and get some other stuff.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, going to a different subject now, Mr. Prince.

A Are we finished with this?

Q Yes, let me take that back.

THE COURT: Why don’t you go ahead and give that, then, to Mr. Dandar.

MR. WEINBERG: I will.

THE COURT: That will save you all from having to copy it.

768

MR. WEINBERG: Is this our only copy? No, we have other copies.

MR. DANDAR: You do have another copy?

MR. WEINBERG: Apparently, somewhere back at the ranch.

THE COURT: But you can go ahead and make yourselves a copy and he can have that one?

MR. WEINBERG: Right. Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, let’s go back to the LMT now. And I think you said a minute ago that I had some misconception of the LMT and picketing. Did I hear you say that?

A Mmm, that is quite possible, yes.

THE COURT: What he said, Counselor, was that you were suggesting that they were picketing on behalf of LMT, and that wasn’t exactly correct.

THE WITNESS: That is right. That’s right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q But the — part of the purpose — part of what the LMT did in 1999 and 2000 was to picket various buildings of the Church of Scientology?

A You know, Mr. Weinberg, I hear you saying that.

But with every video that you have shown here and you have related to the LMT, there are LMT staff that have never picketed, never wanted to, never would, and would not

769

participate —

THE COURT: Mr. Prince, this is really simple.

Really the question is here, and I don’t think it is that difficult, one of the things that LMT did, those folks who were at LMT, was to picket when they thought it appropriate.

THE WITNESS: Yes, occasionally they would.

THE COURT: Exercising their rights, whatever you want to call it.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: They would at times organize a picket and go picket the Church.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, in January of 2000 you were the consultant, expert, working with Ken Dandar in this case, right?

A Correct.

Q And you were also working in the Wollersheim case, as well, at that time?

A Mmm, more than likely, yes.

Q And you were also vice-president at the LMT?

A Well, we already did LMT. You said I was at the LMT. And I was working with Mr. Dandar. There are two things.

Q I’m focusing on the time, January of —

770

A Okay.

Q — 2000, you were the expert for Mr. Dandar —

A Yes, I was the expert for Mr. Dandar, but I don’t think that I immediately assumed work at the Lisa McPherson Trust. I don’t think that is how it happened.

Q Now, I asked you yesterday about you being the big boss at the LMT?

A Yes.

Q And you said no.

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we play that video, please.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q By the way, do you remember a situation where Mr. Minton handed out parrots to various members at the LMT as Christmas gifts so that — indicating — rather, whether you are a big parrot or little parrot, squawking at Scientology, do you remember that happening?

A I think you are referring to a newspaper — a press that Mr. Minton had — had done and that came up —

THE COURT: Did he give you all parrots?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Little ones.

MR. WEINBERG: All right, could we play this?

771

This is from the film library, January 5, 2000.

______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“I have a little presentation, a little sort of Christmas present for the people who are associated with the Lisa McPherson Trust who have made all this possible. Some of you may be aware that back in December a guy named Dave — no, Rick Barry wrote an article in the Tampa Tribune about — I think the headline was ‘Bob Minton, will he rouse the gorilla?’

“Yes. Yes.

“But the real headline is ‘Lisa McPherson Trust, will they rouse the gorilla.’ And in that article, he referred to — in terms of the gorilla, first of all, he was talking about how this gorilla came to Clearwater 25 years ago, 800-pound gorilla, set himself down in the middle of Clearwater, began buying influence, began buying property, and for the last 25 years they have basically made themselves a force in this community by buying people off one at a time.

“And the — the question that Mr. Barry raised in this article was whether, you know, this small band of parrots would be able to, you know, make a

772

difference here in terms of changing the way that this — that this organization is perceived in this community and in terms of the way this organization behaves in this community.

“Well, I remember a good friend of mine, Mark DeLarma, who you all know, said, ‘You thought that was a good article? He, like, called you guys parrots.’ I said, ‘I thought it was a great article.’

“So did I.

“Because it really expressed in a very vivid way how the Lisa McPherson Trust was going to change the way this community interacts and perceives Scientology. And how Scientology will have to — if they want to be healthful here, start acting like an organization that is a church if they want to be called a church.

“So I figured that the first thing that the Lisa McPherson Trust had to do is we had to set up a little — Mmm — mascot for this organization. And everybody who is part of it. So for the first — the first group of — of Christmas presents are for those people who will be based here as part of the organization day in and day out.

“And so the first of those goes — goes to —

773

this is my little parrot that we want to have, the staff members of the Lisa McPherson Trust, and the most famous staff member of all is — is Stacy Brooks.

“There you go.

“The president and chief operating — executive officer.

“The next one — the next one, the same parrot, you know, the same parrot, goes to Jesse Prince, the boss of the whole thing. Who we all love.

“Thank you, Bobby.

“And the — and the third — the third of the fifth parrots goes to Mark Bunker, the multimedia king of the world.

“Sweet.

“Who is doing everything he can to keep a straight face while this is going on.

“There is one for me. I want to keep that.

“And then when David gets here, this is for David Cecere. And I have another parrot which is not currently in waiting here, but that is for Kim Baker when she arrives.

“So we’ve got plenty of parrots.

“We’re not done.

“We’re not done. You know — you know, I mean,

774

so I would like to make a recommendation that we adopt this parrot as the mascot of the Lisa McPherson Trust so that everybody knows that we are going to make a lot of noise, we’re going to be squawking about what Scientology does in terms of harming people and their abusive and deceptive practices, and we’re going to, as little parrots, we’re going to make a lot of noise and drop a lot of stuff that parrots — come out the back end and help these guys learn the way to behave. Okay?

“So —

“Bravo.

“So now — now — now we have little parrots. We have little parrots for all of the big people who have made all this possible. And the first and most important little parrot goes to Patricia because — because what Patricia has done, to help everybody who is down here, get themselves down here and get them settled in and make them feel comfortable in this — in this whole environment, which is not an easy place for — for former Scientologists to come to. You know, they have been willing to stick their neck out and come down here and really make this organization happen. And so Patricia has really made everybody feel comfortable, she’s — she’s sort

775

of like —

“She chased PIs into the bathroom for me.

“Yes, and you — you know — so I — I want Patricia to have a parrot.

“Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.

“Ray Emmons has been teaching us all for — and a lot of people didn’t listen for a long time, how this organization really operates. And he did this in Clearwater. He made himself known nationwide in terms of his opposition to Scientology. And the type of organization that they really are underneath the surface. And so I want Ray to know that he’s a parrot, as well. You have been a parrot for a long time.

“Okay.

“Let me have a kiss here, Patricia, because I didn’t do that. Thank you so much.

“The order of the parrot.

“The order of the parrot. This is like the highest award that the Lisa McPherson Trust can bestow upon somebody.

“Now, you know, Peter Alexander has been squawking about Scientology for a long time, even when he was in it, especially toward the end of the time he was in it, when he was — when he was —

776

when he was being squawked at by Patricia — you know, rather regularly. So — and Peter has allowed Patricia particularly to devote so much time and energy into helping this organization get off the ground.

“And I just want you to know, Peter, that we’re totally thankful for your help and support in this organization, your being on the board. And I really want all of us to know that this is an incredibly tight-knit little group, and got a lot of hard work to do here in Clearwater. But with people like all of us here and you, Peter, thank you so much for doing this. And I want to present you with a little parrot.

“Yes.

“Thank you, sir. Thank you.

“And I want to — I want to —

“The order of the parrots.

“The order of the parrots.

“I want to talk to you about a theme park.

“Yeah. Yeah.

“Now, the next parrot — the next parrot is for Duncan Pierce, you know, our national coordinator. Our national coordinator.

“Oh, my God.

777

“Duncan has been abused by Stacy so much in the last few months that he really deserves a big parrot. But because he’s not here on the staff in the office every day, he can’t get a big parrot, you know, it’s just not part —

“The big parrot —

“Look at Peter.

“It’s — you know, the problem is —

“Patricia? Look at Patricia.

“The problem is it is not in the tech. He can’t have a big parrot. But —

“The standard tech.

“Yeah. Yeah. But — but Duncan has done so much to get us off the ground, as well.

“I don’t know what I would do without him.

“It is amazing. The thing is there are so many people that have really pushed so hard to get this thing going. And, you know, there is no recognition for us. You know, we get abused a lot on the Internet. Our demise has already been scripted by, you know, anti-cult and Diane Richardson. Fine, let them squawk all they want. But the real squawking will be done here in Clearwater by a bunch of parrots. And Duncan is one of those parrots. (Inaudible.)

778

“Then for the — and the person who lives the furtherest from Clearwater, Grady Ward, who is standing right here, we have another parrot, because Mr. Ward — Mr. Ward is — is our security expert here. And already — and already during the course of this day he has learned a lot about security. (Inaudible.)

“Yeah, don’t tell me about it. But I can tell you some things about Grady personally because — (Inaudible.)

“Because one of the things that really got me involved in this thing was Grady Ward. And Grady’s stand against Scientology, you know, back in 1995 or — early ’96 when he started going after them directly after they sued him, he went after them as his own attorney, you know. You know what they say about guys who are their own attorney.

“It is perfectly true.

“And it is perfectly true. Grady will be the first to tell you he had no expertise, no competence whatsoever. But he — he studied the law. He studied what Scientology was doing. He — he learned so much about it. And has become a really good legal man in terms of fighting Scientology. And I — you know, I — I can’t — I can’t imagine

779

somebody having the patience to understand and go through and traveling back and forth from Arcadia, California, eight hours to San Francisco in his car and memorizing the Rules of Civil Procedure. You know, while he’s going back and forth. And I mean memorizing so he knows every paragraph, every subparagraph, whatever. And — (Inaudible.)

“You know, if you talk about a parrot, then this guy is a parrot. And I want to give — I want to give this guy who is a shining example for many people on the Internet in terms of standing up to somebody who is trying to curtail free speech on the Internet, I want Grady to have this parrot as a symbol of our love for him and his contribution to this whole battle.

“Thank you very much. “Thank you, Grady. Thank you.

“And — and now. (Inaudible.)

“And now this other parrot, I forgot to tell you. I told you this was mine. And this parrot is mine because all of you gave me this parrot and I really appreciate it. So —

“Something about Rob and why he gets a parrot,

780

because if it weren’t for him, none of us would be here.

“Absolutely.

“None of us.

“For sure.

“There is nothing else to say.

“Bob is the big parrot.

“Definitely.

“Oh, but this is not all. Oh, some of the best stuff is — some of the best is saved for last. Well, what I would like everybody —

“He’s big with presents, you can see that.

“What I would like everybody to do, if you put the parrots around in a little circle here, if you put the parrots around in a little circle there. (Inaudible.)

“Right, don’t anybody forget — don’t anybody forget — don’t anybody forget. But, you know what the parrots are supposed to do, don’t you? We’re going to get the gorilla. And I didn’t want you to think I forgot about that gorilla. So this gorilla is going to sit right there.

“Whew.

“Don’t dump on the gorilla. Come on. But — but that is what this is all about here.

781

little parrots and some of us big parrots here, we’re going to be here and we’re going to make sure this gorilla behaves.

“We’re going to educate this gorilla and —

“We’re going to put the — we’re going to put the gorilla in the cage or the jungle, wherever it belongs.

“We’re going to turn this gorilla into a parrot.

“Yeah, this gorilla is going to be cooperating with us.

“In any case, everybody can take their parrot back now. And I’ll keep the gorilla, so when we have it on the desk out there, it will be —

“Yes, a constant reminder.

“Yes, as a constant reminder of what we need to do.”

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Bring back memories, Mr. Prince?

A Very fond memories. I’m so sorry that that place doesn’t exist anymore.

MR. DANDAR: I’ll object because we just went through that long video and with the — the question was — to Mr. Prince, “Mr. Prince, were you called or did you call yourself a big boss at the LMT,” and

782

that is not what that video showed. Mr. Minton called Mr. Prince a boss of the whole thing. So — so whatever Mr. Weinberg’s question was was not supported by the video.

THE COURT: Well, it certainly is a video that he could play at some other time so he played it now.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: But it is true, he was not called a big boss —

MR. WEINBERG: He was called the boss of the whole thing.

THE COURT: But I think Mr. Minton made it clear he was the big boss.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, I asked you a lot of questions about what the Lisa McPherson Trust was about. That meeting there was initially the start-up meeting of the Lisa McPherson Trust, wasn’t it? It is essentially right at the beginning?

A I think so. You know, I think you are right about that.

Q Right. And Mr. Minton made it very clear what it was about, squawking about Scientology. That is what the

783

Lisa McPherson Trust was about, wasn’t it?

A No, sir. It was about making Scientology behave.

I think that was also part of this video. Just to behave. Be decent.

Q Putting the gorilla in the cage? Was that what it was about?

A Or in the jungle, wherever it belonged.

Q What does that mean, “or in the jungle, wherever it belonged”?

A Well, it means everything has its place, Mr. Weinberg. And there is hardly anything sinister about what we just watched here.

Q “We’re going to make a lot of noise,” that means you are going to disrupt the activities of the Church of Scientology in Clearwater, right?

A No, Mr. Weinberg. That means that we’re going to expose the deceptive and abusive practices of Scientology and help those who have been victimized by it. That is what we were talking about there.

Q And at that time when you got the second parrot for being the boss of the whole thing, you were supposedly the full-time expert for Ken Dandar, correct?

A I was working for Mr. Dandar as his expert. I wouldn’t go as far as to say full-time. I mean, even you brought up the fact I was working on the Wollersheim case,

784

as well, simultaneously.

Q We’ll get to the — we’ll get — I’ll ask you one question. From June of ’99 until May of 2000 you were getting $5,000 a month from Dandar & Dandar?

A I think the record reflects that, Mr. Weinberg.

Q And this was in that period of time, wasn’t it, this parrot thing?

A I believe it was.

Q Now, you saw this meeting and you were at a number of meetings with Mr. Minton, correct, over the years? You have been with him a lot?

A Yes, I have been with him a lot.

Q And in this particular meeting and others that you were in, Mr. Minton was pretty outspoken, outgoing, he would take over, right? He would speak his piece? He was in control?

A No. Mr. Minton is not that way. That is the biggest myth. You know, Mr. Minton has exact things that he likes to do and he does them. I mean, I learned a lot from him myself. You know, I have never had millions upon millions of dollars myself. I have never been able to help people the way he has been able to help people. He has a different agenda, a different track. Unfortunately, in some instances he has a very short attention span.

And he never, in any instance, ever wants to be

785

the person that is the leader. I mean, he doesn’t — he doesn’t do that. You know, if you want to do it, great. If what you want to do makes sense, great, he’ll support you.

But he’s not going to tell you how to do it.

Q So this was just an aberration?

A No, this was — it was clear what this was.

Mr. Minton was showing his appreciation to persons like Patricia Greenway, myself, Peter Alexander, Duncan Pierce, for helping organize and make the people feel welcome at the Lisa McPherson Trust and helping us be a social — be a social reform group, if nothing else, in order to ultimately help Scientology.

Q By the way, did he look harassed? Did he look like a man that was under some wave of harassment unknown to mankind?

A Actually, he looked like a man giving a speech to a group of people.

Q It looked like he was — that was in the Lisa McPherson Trust building, correct?

A Correct.

Q It looked like all of you, Ms. Greenway, you, Mr. —

THE COURT: What difference does that make they were having fun at the LMT? When gifts were given out?

786

MR. WEINBERG: All right. I’ll go on.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Let me ask you a question about Ray Emmons, the guy that put the parrot on his head.

A I know Ray Emmons well.

Q Now, Mr. Emmons had been a Clearwater police officer and had done an investigation of the Church of Scientology in the ’80s, is that right?

A Yes, I believe that is correct.

Q And Mr. Emmons has been and continues to be the investigator for Ken Dandar in this case, you know that?

A I know that Mr. Dandar has used him to do service of process or locate witnesses and things like that.

Q Now, what was Mr. Emmons’ position at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A I don’t think he had a position. He may have been on the board of directors, which was huge and basically was a friends list. But as far as an official position or coming into that office on a daily basis to work or accomplish a specific task, that was never anything that he did.

MR. WEINBERG: I have a couple E-Mails — or postings I was going to put in, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. I want to take a break here in five minutes, so if it will take more than

787

that, break now. If not, go ahead and do those and we’ll take a break.

MR. WEINBERG: I think we can do those in five minutes. I mean, it is just identifying them.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: These are actually E-Mails, I’m told. I have trouble telling the difference.

THE COURT: Yes, I don’t know the difference, either. If they’re up there on the screen and people can read it, to me, it’s an E-Mail.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay, your Honor, this is 223. I didn’t write the number on it.

THE COURT: Okay, I’ll do it.

MR. WEINBERG: And this is 224.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I’m going to hand you the originals. We’ll put them back when we’re done.

A Okay.

Q All right. If you’ll look at first, Mr. Prince, 223.

A 223? Which one is 223?

Q That is the —

A Okay, I have it here.

Q That is the Jeff Jacobsen —

788

THE COURT: It is the long one.

THE WITNESS: Yes, okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m really only referring to —

I — we just received these from the Lisa McPherson Trust. I have attached the whole thing, your Honor, but the only page that — that — this is part of the E-Mails that were produced.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: But really what I’m focusing on is the first page.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince, you can look at it all, but I don’t know if the rest — sometimes it comes off the computer and —

THE COURT: Who is this from?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q If you look at this, Mr. Prince, this is from Jeff Jacobsen to you and Mr. Bunker and Stacy Brooks. Who is Karen Case?

A She used to be a person hired specifically to work as public relations.

Q And this is dated August 2, 2000. Is that right?

A Well, you know, okay.

Q Do you see that?

A Yes. I do.

789

Q And this is — do you remember having meetings about things that needed to be done at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

MR. DANDAR: Well, Judge, I have to object.

This is not Mr. Prince’s E-Mail so I don’t know how he can question him about some hearsay document authored by somebody that is not here.

THE COURT: Well, I think he can state whether or not this is accurate or not.

MR. WEINBERG: It is to him.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You received this, right, Mr. Prince?

A I have no memory of this.

MR. DANDAR: Which one are you on?

MR. WEINBERG: He’s copied on the E-Mail, it is addressed to him.

THE WITNESS: I don’t even know what this is.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q It is an E-Mail to you.

A Okay.

Q Among other people. All right?

A Okay.

Q What it says, “This is a list of things we talked about, elaborated on by me.”

Now, Mr. Jacobsen was also part of the Lisa

790

McPherson Trust, correct?

A Yes, he was.

Q In fact, in some of those videos yesterday you saw Mr. Jacobsen in it with a camera himself?

A No, I did not see that yesterday, but —

Q Oh. He did take — he took videos from time to time, didn’t I?

A Yes.

Q Do you know why those videos haven’t been turned over, by the way, his, Mr. Jacobsen’s?

A No, I do not. Were they asked for?

THE COURT: Don’t ask him what he knows or doesn’t know about something like that.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll ask it a different way.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you know where the videos that he took are?

A No, I do not.

Q Were they kept at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A I don’t know what he did with his personal videos.

Q But, anyway, this — this — this E-Mail talks about a list of things we talked about, 1, speeches, radio talk shows. 2, picket. 3, press releases. 4, press conferences. 5, help with investigations by EEOC, DEB. 6, the library open for public use. 7, concert November 11. 8, newsletter. 9, attend city council meetings,

791

participate. 10, put up a sign for the office outside. 11, ads in local newspaper. 12, support group. 13, radiofree Clearwater.”

Now, that is 13 things that the Lisa McPherson Trust, I assume, prioritized to do. Not one says anything about counseling, does it?

A You know, I think you are mischaracterizing this E-Mail to somehow reflect or — or be a staple for the activities of the Lisa McPherson Trust, and what this is is just simply an E-Mail of Jeff writing. I have no recollection of it whatsoever and I don’t even remember what it relates to at this point in time.

I mean, I literally have had thousands of E-Mails, Mr. Weinberg. I’m not trying to be uncooperative, I’m trying to cooperate in the spirit, but what you are asking me has no perspective. You are tying this into the Lisa McPherson Trust and it just doesn’t make sense to me.

Q Well, does it make sense to you one of the priorities of the Lisa McPherson Trust was pickets? Does that make sense to you?

A No, not at all.

THE COURT: This is really — in fairness, this is a statement from somebody about some meeting and, frankly, you don’t have to persuade me that the Lisa McPherson Trust picketed. I don’t know why you just

792

keep badgering that home. I know what he’s going to say, you know what he’s going to say. It is me that is in charge of this hearing, and I’m persuaded, but the point was not picketing, it was counseling, wasn’t on the list.

You know, that is unfair to suggest because somebody writes a letter with things they talked about on a given day of things that needed to be done, you can hardly assume putting a sign outside is a primary — is something that needs to be done.

It doesn’t say this is our purpose. I mean, fair is fair, Counselor. And that is not fair to suggest that those are the purposes of the LMT.

MR. WEINBERG: I move it into evidence, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. It will be received. It will be received, although it is only being received for the fact that — that we have a bunch of E-mails.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — that I have let in.

MR. WEINBERG: Then 224 quickly is an E-Mail that —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Is this a posting or E-Mail, 224, Mr. Prince?

793

A I have no idea.

Q Well, this is something that you —

A There is no “to”.

THE COURT: It says it is from you.

THE WITNESS: Yes, is this a note to myself? I don’t know what it is.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you recognize this as something that you did?

THE COURT: Who is Mark? I know there is a Mark.

THE WITNESS: You know, there are lots of Marks.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I think it is pretty clear, the message at the bottom is a Mark Bunker passage. Then —

Q Are you saying, “In the meantime, I recommend you contact U.S. attorney Kennan G. Dandar,” and give his E-Mail address?

THE COURT: What is the date on that?

MR. WEINBERG: It is November 10, 1999.

THE COURT: Before the trust was formed?

MR. WEINBERG: Right — well, the trust actually had already been formed, remember, it was incorporated and it was in the process of being set up.

A You know, this is a partial thing here from Mark. I can’t tell if somebody wrote in and had a legal question and I’m referring them to Ken Dandar, who is a lawyer that could maybe answer a legal question for them, or whether or not they need assistance or the service the trust has to offer. I can’t tell from this. I can’t draw the inference that somehow this means Ken Dandar is running the Lisa McPherson Trust or anything like that.

MR. WEINBERG: I move it into evidence, your Honor.

MR. DANDAR: I object. It is too partial to make sense.

795

THE COURT: I’m going to let it in for whatever value it has, which is little, as to a lot of the other E-Mails, because of the same problem.

MR. WEINBERG: So is this a good time to take a break?

THE COURT: It is a good time to take a break.

We’ll be in recess for 15 minutes. I show it is 25 till. That will be about ten till.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 10:35 to 10:55 a.m.)

_______________________________________

THE COURT: Okay. I signed the order and I mailed out the copies. But those of you who are here, I’ll give you yours. Mr. Dandar. Here is Mr. Lirot’s, too. I didn’t realize he wasn’t here.

Q Now, Mr. Prince, you first learned about Bob Minton after watching a television show Dateline in which he appeared and Ms. Brooks appeared in June of ’98?

A That is incorrect.

Q Did you watch a television show before you met Mr. Minton where you learned about him?

A No, I did not.

Q How did you learn about Mr. Minton?

A Through Mrs. Brooks.

Q So she just reached out for you, you didn’t reach out for her?

A Well, Mr. Weinberg, I think I spoke on this before but I’ll speak on it again.

I was on vacation in Connecticut. I had been in the cyber coffee cafe. I had gone on the Internet. Do you remember that testimony, Mr. Weinberg?

THE COURT: It was rather elaborate.

A I left my phone number and she called me.

(Telephone interruption.)

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you ever see the Dateline —

THE COURT: Don’t be sorry to him. Be sorry to me. It is my word that says no phone.

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, I apologize for the

797

distraction.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you ever see the television show The Crusader, I think on NBC Dateline, where Mr. Minton was featured about his crusade against Scientology?

A Mmm, more than likely, many months to possibly a year after he had done that program, I’d seen it. But I didn’t see it when it ran on national television.

Q Well, you learned, shortly after your call from Ms. Brooks, that Mr. Minton was a very wealthy person who was handing out a lot of money to people that would work against Scientology, correct?

A That is categorically false.

Q Ms. Brooks didn’t tell you that Mr. Minton had given her and Vaughn a lot of money, including the purchase of a $250,000 home?

A At one point in time Mrs. Brooks did relay the information that Mr. Minton had given her and her husband some money and she explained the circumstances about that.

Q Did a relative tell you about the Dateline show featuring —

THE COURT: A relative of whom?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q A relative of yours tell you about — in or about this time period before you met Mr. Minton — did a relative

798

tell you about having seen this show where Mr. Minton was featured or some friend or some family member?

A A cousin of mine, when I lived in — I guess I must have been still living in Minneapolis and we were in a phone conversation. And she was telling me about a program where she had seen — she had seen concerning Scientology and there was a man that was helping people or somehow got involved in it. She didn’t remember his name. She just remembered — and, you know, as it is with my family, if they see something about Scientology on TV, they tell me about it when I speak to them.

Q Was that before you communicated with Ms. Brooks?

A I believe it was.

Q So when you learned about Ms. Brooks, you already knew about Mr. Minton?

A As I said, she didn’t know Mr. Minton’s name. All she related was, “I saw a story on TV about Scientology and the different things that they do. And there was a man that was helping people that had been in Scientology before.”

Q And did you research, prior to hearing from Ms. Brooks, did you research to learn who this guy was and what he was doing for people who had been in Scientology?

A No. I had not.

Q Now, when did you learn, after communicating with Ms. Brooks, how wealthy Mr. Minton was?

799

A When I spoke to him.

Q And how long after you talked to Ms. Brooks did you talk to Mr. Minton?

A Mmm, maybe a month. Maybe two months.

Q So I was under the impression that on this trip — I guess I’m wrong — this trip to Connecticut, that you went from Connecticut right up to Mr. Minton’s house after talking to Ms. Brooks?

A No, that is incorrect, Mr. Weinberg.

Q So you went home after that?

A Correct.

Q And you stayed in touch —

A Oh, no, no, I’m sorry, you know, because it is so important to make sure the record is correct. From Connecticut, I flew to Ohio and met with Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Haney.

Q And was it at that time that you were given a new car?

A No. No. It was not. And I was never given a new car by anyone.

Q Somebody purchased it? Mr. Minton purchased a new car for you or caused a new car to be purchased for you?

A No. That is incorrect.

Q Well, how did you get the $23,000 Rodeo vehicle?

A I never got a $23,000 Rodeo. I had use of a

800

$23,000 Rodeo but that $23,000 Rodeo belonged to FACTNet, and when I terminated my employment with them, that car stayed with FACTNet. You understand?

Q Now, that was purchased where, the car?

A In —

THE COURT: Where like what dealer? What city?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q What city? What city?

A You know, I don’t remember the name of the city.

Q But it was in Ohio, that area, either Minneapolis or Ohio, correct?

A Correct.

Q And did —

A Well, wait a minute. Let me not do this thing because you accused me of this earlier. It was in Minneapolis specifically. I know the specific answer. I’m not going to play charades here with you. It was in a place near Minneapolis, a city that was near Minneapolis, and I don’t specifically recall the name of the city.

Q And it was purchased new, is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And you and who went to pick it up at the dealer?

A Mmm, a friend of mine — Mmm — took me — drove me to the dealership to pick it up.

Q And did you have a check with you? How was it

801

paid for?

A No. I didn’t have a check.

Q Ms. Brooks took care of paying for the car? Is that what happened?

A No. Ms. Brooks did not — well, you know, I don’t think so. But quite factually, I don’t know who — how that part of it happened.

Q There just happened to be a new car waiting for you at the dealership?

A No. They needed a vehicle for FACTNet. You know, let me — if you have patience with me, I’ll tell you the — what happened there.

They needed a car in Boulder —

Q Boulder, Colorado?

A Boulder, Colorado, which is where FACTNet was located. I was going to FACTNet to assist in that organization. The car was purchased. I moved everything that I had in Minneapolis and moved to Boulder, Colorado. I made that move to at least be safe or — or to be around some people that could offer some protection to me, because after I’d contacted Mr. — Mr. Minton, the private investigators started, the threatening letters to sue me from Scientology started. And I was alone in Minneapolis, and it was like, “Okay, come here, we’ll help you, we’ll protect you, we have lawyers,” whatever.

802

Q You were alone and bankrupt in Minneapolis, right?

A I had filed bankruptcy in 1997. I think the year we’re talking about now is 1998.

Q June of 1998. Bankruptcy in November of 1997, right? Your next real job after bankruptcy was to be paid by FACTNet and Mr. Minton, correct?

A That is completely false.

Q Now —

A You want to know what my next job was or you just want to leave it like that.

Q Tell me what your next job was.

A I was self-employed. I had an art business called The Art Guy. I had a kiosk in the mall in downtown Minneapolis. I was making my own money and I was actually doing pretty good for myself.

Q But something encouraged you, prompted you, to pick up and leave Minneapolis and move to Boulder, Colorado, at which time you became associated with FACTNet and started being a paid witness in various Scientology cases, correct?

A I think you have added a little bit of baggage on that. But what actually occurred is I left Minneapolis with my business intact. I had employees in Wisconsin and employees in Minneapolis, and I left and went to Boulder, Colorado.

Q Driving this car?

803

A Correct.

Q And you drove this car for how long? How many months did you drive this new car that somebody paid for that you picked up new?

A Off and on, maybe about three months.

Q Now, after — but before you moved to Boulder, you went to New Hampshire to visit Mr. Minton?

A Yes.

Q And you and who went to New Hampshire to visit Mr. Minton?

A It was just myself.

Q And he flew you to New Hampshire?

A I — I believe the way the scenario worked is Mrs. Brooks arranged flight — airfare, the flight, for me to fly there, yes.

Q Much like she had arranged the car to be purchased?

A I think we’re mixing apples and oranges here because I think I stated earlier in the testimony I’m not quite sure who did that on behalf of FACTNet. That car was purchased in FACTNet’s name. It was never in Jesse Prince’s name, Bob Minton’s name, Stacy Brooks’s name. It was a corporate car. That is the way it was purchased and that is the way it was left.

Q And the person that was financing FACTNet at the

804

time was Bob Minton?

A Mmm, no.

Q Did Mr. — one last question about the car. Did Mr. Haney provide the funds for the car, Brian Haney?

A Not that I’m aware of. But then again, I don’t know the details of it. I know that — I think Mr. Haney did have some association with FACTNet at the time.

Q And what were you seeing Mr. Haney in Ohio about with Ms. Young?

A I mean, I had never known Mr. Haney. I didn’t know who he was. He just happened to be there. I was there to visit with Stacy.

The visit with Stacy — her and I have been associated — associated and friends through Scientology since 1976. She was one of the very first persons that I met when I joined the Sea Org. And we were just happy to see each other. Her ex-husband, Vaughn Young, and I were very good friends. You know, he was an executive and we were friends, and it was — and from leaving Scientology — because when you leave and you are ostracized, people disconnect from you; you are a suppressive person, degraded being, whatever, you don’t have any friends anymore. But to actually encounter someone from Scientology that you knew before that will talk to you because you are not a Scientology is a rare thing.

805

Q Now, the Youngs left in 1989, correct?

A Yes, I assume that, yes.

Q You left in 1992?

A Yes.

Q But you didn’t communicate with the Youngs until Mr. Minton came on the scene in 1998, after you left Scientology, correct?

A I think that is a mischaracterization of my earlier testimony, Mr. Weinberg. Because I think the way I testified, and again I’ll go through the whole thing —

Q No, just answer that question.

A But I wrote an E-mail from a cybercafe that said, “If you know Vaughn Young or Stacy Brooks, please give them my phone number.” Mr. Minton was not part of the equation.

Q My question was you didn’t have any communication with Vaughn or Stacy Young after you left Scientology in 1992 until this cybercafe thing in 1998?

A Correct.

Q As far as you know, they didn’t reach out for you prior to that time, either, is that correct, as far as you know?

A As far as I know.

Q Now, Stacy Young must have told you, when you were in Ohio with her and Brian Haney, she must have told you about the activities that she and Vaughn, her husband, had

806

been involved in for the past four years concerning cases involving Scientology. She told you about that, didn’t she?

A In our first meeting?

Q When you —

A Oh, when I went to Ohio? Are you talking about the Ohio trip?

Q Yes.

A There may have been a brief mention of that, what she was doing. But for sure the substance and the bulk of our conversation was the fact that we were together, we were alive, we actually made it out somewhat sane people and we were just happy to see each other.

Q Did she tell you she and her husband had been making a living off testifying and being experts in cases against Scientology for the past three or four years?

A No, she did not.

Q Did she tell you you had a good opportunity to — to get in on the gravy train, so to speak? Did she tell you that?

A I take offense to that characterization. But that statement is categorically false.

Q Did she tell you that you had the opportunity to make money by being — by working with lawyers in cases involving Scientology? Did she tell you that?

A No, she did not.

807

Q So you didn’t have any discussion about you getting involved in any of these cases?

A At that point in time in Ohio, no, we did not.

Q There came a point in time where you did talk to Stacy about that?

A Yes.

Q And when was that?

A Mmm, I’m not quite sure. It was maybe some months later or — I’m not quite sure. But I think while we were talking she was telling me about FACTNet. She was telling me about this organization which, in some respects, was similar to the Lisa McPherson Trust which had as its intention of providing information and doing what it can to assist people or persons who felt they had been victimized by Scientology. And —

THE COURT: Was FACTNet just Scientology or was it cults in general?

THE WITNESS: Cults in general, you know, the whole subject. Very broad.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q It was primarily Scientology, though, wasn’t it?

A No. If you go on their website, you know, Scientology has its place, but there are many other cults that they have provided information, ex-members speaking

808

about it, you know.

Q Well, the staff members of FACTNet tended to be people that were more interested in Scientology or had had some involvement with Scientology as opposed to other groups. Correct?

A No. That is actually false. There was one person that was a staff — that was a staff member in FACTNet, I think her name was Justine. She was a Christian woman that had never been in Scientology before.

Q You are telling me so you learned about how you could make some money involving Scientology from Ms. Brooks.

So when did that happen?

A You know, I —

THE COURT: Make some money involving Scientology? That doesn’t make sense.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Who was the first person that told you –suggested to you that you might be — you might be a witness and could be paid as a, quote, expert on Scientology? Who told you that?

A No one told me that, Mr. Weinberg.

Q Who asked you to be involved in the first case that you got involved in?

A Mr. Leipold.

Q He just reached out for you?

809

A He was an associate of Mrs. Brooks. Mrs. Brooks was explaining to me about FACTNet. And the whole subject came about because we were talking about being in touch with people that we had lost contact with, old friends that were in Scientology. So she was introducing me, “Well, you know, another person, you know, people from Los Angeles, hey, do you know this one? He’s out.” And Andre Tabayoyon, I think I spoke with him. We were just talking about the people that we knew in Scientology that were no longer there that were out, you know, getting on with their lives, doing what they do.

Q What were you doing in Ohio with Mr. Haney and Ms. Brooks? I mean, why Ohio? You live in Minneapolis. She lived in Seattle. Why were you in Ohio?

A That is where she was when she called me. And I was in Connecticut and she was in Ohio.

Q Is there something special in Ohio?

A I think that is where Mr. Haney lives. She was in Columbus, Ohio. That is where Mr. Haney lives.

Q You went to New Hampshire. How did you get in touch with Mr. Minton? Did you call him? He call you?

A I think I answered this before. This happened through Mrs. Brooks. I met Mrs. Brooks, and then I had — you know, sometime after that I spoke to Mr. Minton on the phone and maybe a month or two later actually went to visit

810

with him.

Q He flew you to New Hampshire —

THE COURT: He said he didn’t know who paid for the ticket. We can assume it was Mr. Minton, directly or indirectly.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Somebody arranged for you to fly to New Hampshire, right?

A Stacy Brooks.

Q All right. But she wasn’t at this weekend — was it a weekend?

A Actually a couple weeks.

Q You were at Mr. Minton’s house for a couple weeks?

A Yes.

Q Who else was there other than you and Mr. Minton?

A His family would come occasionally. His wife. His children.

Q And anybody — I mean, other than his family, anybody else?

A No.

Q What did you-all — did you talk about Scientology in those two weeks?

A Yes, we did. We talked about Scientology. We talked about why — why he became involved. What this was

811

all about. He was very interested to know my involvement, my history, compared to other people that he had talked to.

And again, this is all in reference to, hey, you know, these ex-people, these people that used to be in and now they are not in and now they’re getting together and talking to each other and it is okay to do that.

Q And did he give you some money, some expense money at that point, either before the trip or during the visit or after the trip?

A No. No. I don’t think so.

Q Did he pay for your expenses to move from Minneapolis to Denver?

A Yes.

Q And —

MR. DANDAR: I object because we have got to establish a time frame here. It sounds like it all happened on the same day.

THE COURT: That is true. Whatever the time frame is, I don’t think it all happened on the same day.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

A It didn’t.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q It didn’t. I’m not suggesting that. Do you remember how much he gave you to move from Minneapolis to

812

Denver?

A Mmm, $10,000.

Q In a check? Cash? I mean, how did you get the money?

THE COURT: What difference does it make?

MR. WEINBERG: Probably not.

THE COURT: It doesn’t make any difference.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Where did you get the money? I mean, did this happen in New Hampshire? Or did it happen after the trip to New Hampshire that he gave you the $10,000?

A You know, I’m not sure because, you know, I made a couple of trips to New Hampshire. So I’m not really sure how that came about. But I’ll do the best I can to explain it to you, Mr. Weinberg.

I went there once, I stayed there for a couple of weeks, came back to Minneapolis. The threats started. I was starting to get letters from Elliot Abelson, Scientology attorney in Chicago, letting me know I would be sued. I had private investigators starting a noisy investigation in my neighborhood. And I think I alerted Mr. Minton and Mrs. Brooks, I said, “Look, I can’t believe this whole thing is starting all over again.” You know — you are right, I did do the bankruptcy thing. I cut ties with Scientology

813

completely. I was done with it. I didn’t want another thing to do with it. You know, it is kind of like every time you put your hand in the fire, you know you are going to get burned. I was done.

Q You were done but then you decided to get involved in cases against Scientology?

A Then I went to meet these people and my freedom of association was trying to be inhibited from Scientology — by Scientology. They didn’t want me to associate with these people. There were no — no criminal activity occurred, nothing happened. I’m simply talking to people that used to be in Scientology.

Q All I asked you, did you get the money from Mr. Minton during your trips to New Hampshire or after. That is all I asked, and if you don’t remember just —

A In one of the trips.

Q — just tell me you don’t know.

A In one of the trips, Mr. Weinberg, I did get the money from him to move.

Q Now, did Mr. Minton tell you that he would, in essence, take care of you thereafter to support you with regard to your work involving Scientology?

A No, he did not.

Q But in reality, that is what happened for the next four years, didn’t it?

814

A No, it is not.

Q Well, you began to get money from Mr. Minton after this first $10,000, correct? I mean, from that point on for the next four years you received money, directly or indirectly, from Bob Minton on a monthly basis, didn’t you?

A Mr. Weinberg, I received money from FACTNet when I started working for FACTNet, when I moved from Minneapolis to Boulder, Colorado. I started to receive some — and very little from FACTNet. The fact of the matter is that I was able to live and do what I was doing because I had been — I had my own business, I had staff working for me in two states. I was receiving regular moneys from profits that I had made. And this was where the bulk of my money was coming from.

Q So you had all these profits that you had accumulated after the November bankruptcy between November and June of ’98?

A Correct.

Q Okay. Now, you got the $10,000 from Mr. Minton.

And how much money do you remember that you received from FACTNet?

A Maybe a couple of thousand. You know, one month.

A thousand another. You know, it was kind of back and forth.

Q And then you came — then, shortly after this, you

815

came to Florida in the fall of 1998 to begin work with regard to the PC folders in this case. Correct? You flew to Florida?

A Correct.

Q And you spent how many days with Ms. Brooks reviewing the PC folders of Lisa McPherson in the fall of ’98?

A You know, I’m not sure, but it was like many days, maybe even more than a week. And it was something I came back to, as well, and participated in getting the folders copied. So this whole thing with the folders started in December but it went through a period of time, a month’s period of time of going through those folders.

Q So at that point when you first came you were now officially on board as an expert for Mr. Dandar in the Lisa McPherson matter, correct?

A I — I wouldn’t say that. The reason why Mr. Dandar wanted me to go through those folders is because of my expertise in Scientology, my prior technical experience, the many courses and certificates and internships I had finished.

THE COURT: Were you his consultant, as well?

THE WITNESS: Not at that time. I just came down to do the preclear folders. Mr. Dandar and I did not have a relationship because we didn’t know

816

each other. And through time — and he could see my competence in interpreting Scientology policies and bulletins — that I then became a consultant and worked more closely with him on the case.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, at the time — when you were reviewing these folders it was in Mr. Dandar’s office?

A Yes.

Q And you had — you met with Mr. Dandar at that period of time?

A Yes.

Q I mean, you introduced yourself to him and all that?

THE COURT: Well, Counsel, come on.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you bill him for your time?

A No.

Q You just did this for free?

A Yes. And I had done it for free many times. I mean, I have worked for Morrison & Foerster, and Feaster from — out of San Francisco in a legal case. I worked for Mr. Leipold in a legal case. I worked for Mr. Dandar. I mean, by that time I had been working with these different attorney firms or at least they had been calling me to see if I could assist them in these other legal cases.

817

Q Well, who was paying you to be in Tampa, St. Pete, wherever it was, that you were to work with Mr. Dandar and Ms. Brooks with regard to this case in the fall of 1998 and early 1999 when you were going through these PC folders?

A Again I’ll say that my expenses to fly down to Florida, I believe, was paid by Mr. Dandar. The money that I used to exist for that period of time, I think we’re talking about maybe six months, for the most part — for the greater majority of it were residuals from the business I operated in Minneapolis.

A He may have did it a time or two but it wasn’t consistent. And FACTNet was a very small organization. It sometimes just didn’t have money. And my — you know, and this was kind of like a period of time like where how do you fit in? So, you know, I would occasionally tell Mr. Minton, “Hey, you know, these people don’t have money. I can’t live on air here. Can you help out?”

Q Well, why Mr. Minton? Why not Mr. Dandar who you were doing the work for?

A Because I was working on FACTNet now, you know.

We’re mixing apples and oranges here. FACTNet was a

818

corporation that Mr. Minton was on the board of directors of.

Q Well, I thought — correct me if I’m wrong, I thought I heard you say that starting in the fall of 1998, into 1999, you spent a number of days, weeks, whatever, working on this case, the Lisa McPherson case?

Q How can you say that? You just said you were in his office in the fall of 1998 looking at the PC folders?

A Wait — okay. Well, okay, I’m confused with the dates. So —

THE COURT: So what is the right date?

THE WITNESS: I don’t know. I mean, was it 1998?

THE COURT: That is fine. I told you and I’ll tell you again and it is really a wonderful answer, you know, 1997, ’98, ’99, there could be a lot of these dates you simply don’t know, and there is nothing wrong with saying, “I’m not sure what the date was. I don’t know for sure.”

THE WITNESS: Thank you, your Honor.

A Mr. Weinberg, I don’t know. I don’t recall for sure.

819

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, when did you become the expert/consultant in the Lisa McPherson case?

A I believe that I got a letter from Mr. Dandar quite possibly in March of 1999 that memorialized the fact that he wanted to hire me to be his consultant. We had had a working relationship at that point because I helped him a lot and I — and —

THE COURT: You know, I haven’t heard a date yet. When is the question?

A March of ’99. I think that is when we formed an agreement and decided on terms.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All right. Prior to March of ’99, in the months prior to March of ’99, you had done a lot of work assisting Mr. Dandar with, for example, PC folders, correct?

A Correct.

Q So whether that started in November or December of ’98, it was sometime several months before March of ’99 when you signed on as the expert. Right?

A Yes.

Q And —

A To the best of my recollection.

Q And prior to signing on as the expert, can you tell us how much time you had spent down here helping out

820

Mr. Dandar before you signed on as the expert?

A I’m sorry, I can’t tell you how much time it was.

Q Okay. Now, once you signed on with Mr. Dandar, then was it established that you were on a monthly salary?

A Mmm, I think the letter that memorializes that agreement, I was on a monthly retainer of $5,000 a month and my billable hours which I believe was either $100 or $150 an hour.

Q If you exceeded the $5,000? Or is it in addition to the $5,000?

A The $5,000 retainer, and the hours against that, plus any other hours if I put in more hours or whatever.

Q But you didn’t keep your hours, we established — remember we established that in front of Judge Moody that you didn’t keep your hours. Right?

A Well, no, in the beginning I didn’t. And again, Mr. Weinberg, there was nothing to keep prior to that because I had just literally done the work for free.

Q Well, we have asked for your hours as part of the various discovery, and it came up in the Judge Moody hearing when you testified in front of Judge Moody and your testimony was, I believe, that either you didn’t keep them or you didn’t have them.

A Right. I didn’t have accurate records. I didn’t have any notes to turn over or — no.

821

Q So what you got paid by Mr. Dandar was $5,000 a month because you didn’t keep the time in order to get anything in addition to that. Correct?

A Well, you see, we’re mixing apples and oranges here again now. Because I think, you know, you talk about that time period from 1998 to —

THE COURT: I’m — he’s talking about the time period from March of ’99 when you were placed on a $5,000-a-month retainer, was it $100 or $150 an hour again that — which was it?

THE WITNESS: I’m not sure, I think it may have been $150, actually.

THE COURT: Let’s assume it was $150 an hour.

Basically how that works, if you go over, whatever $150 into $5,000 is, then you get more, but if you get less, you still keep the five.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Was that the deal?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So you didn’t keep records, apparently?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: You were paid $5,000 a month?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: For whatever — for however many

822

hours you worked?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q We’ll show you the checks, but that continued up until — your recollection is that continued to a particular point in time, I believe the records will show, May of 2000 when you left Mr. Dandar’s payroll and went on LMT’s payroll. Correct?

A My reference point for that, Mr. Weinberg, is that we had finished the depositions of all of the Scientology persons that needed to be deposed. And Mr. Dandar was going to go on to —

THE COURT: Well, is that correct? Is that the date? I mean, all he wants to know —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q All I want to know —

A I don’t know if that is the right date. I’m saying my reference is this —

Q At some point, and we’ll show you the checks, I’m representing to you I think the last Dandar check is May of ’99 — or May of 2000. At some point in time you quit getting Dandar & Dandar checks and you started getting LMT checks?

A Correct.

Q And LMT continued to pay you at $5,000 a month?

823

A Correct.

Q The same $5,000 — the same amount. And you negotiated that rate with Mr. Minton?

A And Mrs. Brooks.

Q Now, and then the LMT at some point — you testified about either yesterday or the day before — closed down, correct?

A Correct.

Q And whenever that was, your recollection it was sometime in August or September of 2001. Right?

THE COURT: When was the date? When was the date?

MR. WEINBERG: That I don’t know exactly. I mean, it depends on — I mean, I’m really asking Mr. Prince.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I believe that you, Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks said it was sometime in the August/September of 2001 time period, is that correct?

A Mr. Weinberg, my recollection is I think it ceased to exist as a corporation — I think there was something that Stacy wrote. But again as I testified to yesterday, there was that period of time when Judge Beach still had to come into the trust in order to go through all of the offices, the library, looking for discovery, so in effect it

824

was kind of forced to stay open longer after that.

Q Well, we’ll show you the checks. But the records from LMT —

THE COURT: If you have got the checks, wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to show him, then I wouldn’t have to listen to this?

MR. WEINBERG: Right. I will.

THE COURT: What you said yesterday was even after it closed down there was a period of time when you were working and you got paid for that, too, is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Whatever the checks show, the checks show.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And then at some point you quit getting LMT checks, right?

A Correct.

Q And — but Mr. Minton continued to pay you. Right?

A No. That is incorrect. Mrs. Brooks did.

Q You knew that Mrs. Brooks was getting the money from Mr. Minton. Right?

A Well, you know — come on.

Q Come on yeah?

825

A Do I need to assume that for you to make a point?

The answer to the question is I was being paid by Mrs. Brooks. Her name is on the check. It is to me. That is it.

Q All right. And that was at $5,000 a month, as well?

A Correct.

Q And who did you negotiate that deal with?

A Mrs. Brooks.

Q And did you talk to Mr. Minton about it?

A No. I specifically talked to Mrs. Brooks about it because she wanted everyone to take a cut in pay. And, again, this constant figure of $5,000 is something that we had discussed many years earlier.

Q “We” being?

A Mrs. Brooks, Mr. Minton. This is what I need to be able to live.

Q So —

A This is comparable to what I was making before I came and started doing this. I —

Q I’m sorry, before you ever signed on with Mr. Dandar, you had already discussed with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks that you needed $5,000 a month to live, correct?

A Correct.

Q And is that what you’re getting paid at FACTNet,

826

as well?

A No.

Q Now, when you started getting these checks — they were checks, right, from Ms. Brooks, you were still living in Clearwater. Right? Or — or Florida?

A I’m still living here. Yes.

Q And you’re living in a house that Mr. Minton gave you a $50,000 down payment on. Correct?

A That was part of the down payment that I had to make. My total down payment for that house was $70,000.

Q How much of that $70,000 did Mr. Minton give you?

A $50,000.

Q And when was that? When did he give you the $50,000?

A You know, I guess it was sometime in February.

And, you know —

THE COURT: If you have the check, show it to him.

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t have the check, I don’t think.

A Well, you know, we’ve said —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, could you just tell me when you bought your house?

THE COURT: If he doesn’t know, he doesn’t

827

know. If you don’t know, say you don’t know.

A I know when I bought the house. I think the 21st or 22nd of February of 2000.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And at that point in February of 2000, you were getting Dandar & Dandar monthly checks as his consultant.

Right?

A Correct.

Q All right. And how did it come about Mr. Minton gave you $50,000 of the $70,000 that you needed for the downpayment?

A You want to hear this?

Q You asked him for it?

THE COURT: Go on ahead. You asked. He can tell it. Go on and rattle off however long this story is going to take.

A Prior to moving down to Clearwater, we had discussed — had many discussions about, well, where to put the Lisa McPherson Trust. We were kicking around this idea of the LMT, where is it going to go? Should it be in D.C., should it be in Boston, in the Los Angeles area. Bob said Clearwater.

We discussed this, David Cecere, myself, I think Mrs. Brooks, Mr. Minton and there — there quite possibly could have been someone else there — I don’t remember — of

828

where to put this thing.

And Mr. Minton really wanted to put it in Clearwater. He felt that it was important that it happen in Clearwater. Which meant that everyone that was going to work there would be displaced from where they were currently living to move here.

Mr. Minton offered to pay the moving expenses for all concerned and to help all concerned establish residence in Clearwater.

Q So he paid your moving expenses which —

A Correct.

Q — included a $50,000 downpayment?

A No, sir. That is what was discussed in — in New Hampshire, you know, before we moved here. Ultimately, Mr. Minton gave me the $50,000 loan to purchase that house, but I paid for my own moving expenses and I paid — I mean, the whole deal cost about $80,000 for me to relocate.

Because I had a place in Memphis. And by this time I’m kind of living with — in Chicago. By this time I’m kind of living with my fiancee in Memphis, Tennessee, as well. So when I moved down to Clearwater I had to move from two cities; I had to move from Chicago, I had to move from Memphis, Tennessee, to Clearwater.

Q Mr. Minton paid some other things for you. He paid your attorney fees in the criminal case down here,

829

didn’t he?

A I believe the Lisa McPherson Trust paid those.

Q Well, did you — did you discuss with Mr. Minton that you needed funds to pay an attorney when you got charged down here?

A No.

Q So who did you discuss that with so that the Lisa McPherson Trust paid for your attorney fees?

A I wanted to hire a fellow named Rob Love to defend me in that action. Mrs. Brooks insisted that Mr. DeVlaming would handle my case and it would be taken care of by the Lisa McPherson Trust as a job hazard.

Q As a job hazard?

A Yes.

Q Okay. And that was around $60,000 or $70,000?

A The bill that I saw — I think it was about $45,000 that I saw.

Q Do you think it was more than that or you don’t know?

A I think it could have been more.

Q Now, how long — so how would you get these checks from Ms. Brooks after the Lisa McPherson Trust closed down?

A She would mail them to me from Atlanta.

Q The last check you got was on or about April 4 of 2002?

830

A Correct.

Q And did you have a discussion — all these discussions that you had with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton that you have testified about this year, in any of those discussions did you discuss with them your need for them to continue paying you?

A Mmm, no, I haven’t had a discussion about that. I mean, we — I think I brought up earlier, in September there was a renegotiation of — Stacy wanted people to take pay cuts or whatever. And —

Q But you didn’t take one?

A Correct.

Q I was talking about April. In that — do you remember you said you had all these conversations, that you referred to them in your affidavit, with Mr. Brooks — with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton —

A Oh, okay.

Q In those conversations did you raise the fact that you needed more money, you needed money, you wanted money?

A No.

Q Okay.

A I did not.

Q Now, you said that you began as the paid expert/consultant in the Lisa McPherson case in March of — of 1999. Correct?

831

A Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Now, let me have the reporter — the clerk —

A To the best of my recollection.

MR. WEINBERG: — mark as a 3-page exhibit, if we can do that, your Honor —

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. WEINBERG: — some checks. This will be 225.

THE COURT: All right. Do I have the right order, the way you handed it to me?

MR. WEINBERG: I think so.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: It is possible, however, that I screwed that up, but —

THE COURT: It is all right.

MR. WEINBERG: But the order should be February, March and May. That is what I’m hoping.

THE COURT: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q This is 225, Mr. Prince.

A Okay.

Q And you recognize the first page of 225 to be a February 2nd of 1999 check from Bob Minton for $6,500 to you?

832

A Yes, I do.

Q Do you recognize the second page to be a March — appears to be March 18, 1999 check to you for $5,000, do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q From Mr. Minton again?

A Yes.

Q And the third check to be a May 4, 1999 check for $5,000 from Mr. Minton?

A Correct. Q Now, this was — these checks had to do with the agreement that you had already worked out with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks about you getting at least $5,000 a month?

A Correct.

Q But you were getting this on top of what you were getting from Mr. Dandar?

A No.

Q Okay. You think you started getting from Mr. Dandar a little bit later?

A Yes.

Q Now, what was this $5,000 a month for? I mean, one was $6,500. Do you know why it was $6,500?

A Do you know, I don’t know. I was looking at that. That is an anomaly. That must have been money left over from another month. Because as I said, there was a

833

stretch — period of time after I met — certainly from 1998 until I guess this first check here that I was just simply not paid at all.

Q But this — you are not getting paid for FACTNet work, you are getting paid for Lisa McPherson work prior to signing on with —

A No.

Q — Ken Dandar?

A No.

Q Well, what is this work? What is this —

A I’m in FACTNet when this is happening.

Q Why was FACTNet paying you?

A Well, I think I mentioned earlier that sometimes FACTNet just didn’t have money and I would call Mr. Minton. I can’t just be down here.

Q Now, when —

THE COURT: Weren’t you making $3,500 a month at FACTNet? Or am I thinking of something else?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, you may be right about that because we did have — have some agreement, I think I reached some agreement with them to do that. And, you know, at that time I still had my other business. I still had other employees. I would often make trips, you know. So that could have been the case.

834

But the fact of the matter is the organization didn’t have the money.

THE COURT: I’m trying to think of why — I have no idea why it was $6,500 either unless perhaps —

MR. WEINBERG: I think it might have been some expenses or something.

THE COURT: Or perhaps he was getting $3,500 from FACTNet. He was supposed to start getting $5,000 from whatever, and I didn’t get — the difference from $3,500 to $5,000 would be $6,500.

That would be rational but —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q In any event, Mr. Minton knew you had been doing this work in Clearwater for Mr. Dandar with regard to the PC folders? He knew that?

A I assume he did.

Q I mean, you were in — once you had spent that however long you said it was, I forgot now, a couple weeks at his house, you communicated with him regularly after that, didn’t you?

A Up until this very occurrence, yes.

THE COURT: What is “this very occurrence”?

This —

THE WITNESS: That is occurring here.

835

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Now I’m going to mark as our next exhibit, your Honor —

THE CLERK: 226.

MR. WEINBERG: — 226, this is 226 —

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, 226 is a response that was filed by Mr. Dandar on April 6, 2001. And attached — and the response shows that it has checks attached, but if you’ll look at the summary on Page 2, it identifies a 6/30/99 check, an 8/20/99 check, a 9/15/99 —

A Excuse me, I’m not following you at all.

MR. WEINBERG: If I could approach a second?

THE COURT: You don’t need to read them all into evidence. Just put it into evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: I just wanted him to look at it.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You see those?

A Uh-huh.

Q Attached is those checks. So either look at the attachment or summary there.

Is it your recollection that is the sum and substance of what Dandar & Dandar paid you while you were on the — you know, being working as a consultant/expert?

836

A I believe this is correct with the possible exception of recent activity.

Q Right. No, I’m talking about prior to 2002.

A Okay.

Q And that the first check was on or about June 30, 1999. Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And the last check was on or about May 24, 2000.

A Yes.

Q And it’s your recollection that after you received the last check, that is when you started getting paid at the same rate by Lisa McPherson Trust?

Q In other words, you — your salary was $5,000 a month but your take-home was whatever —

A About 35.

Q So I’m going to show you a series of those checks, as well.

A Okay.

Q You were on a 1099 for Mr. Dandar, in other words, he didn’t withhold from your checks, right?

A Correct.

THE COURT: You were considered an independent contractor when you worked for him, is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

THE CLERK: 227.

MR. WEINBERG: This is 227, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q This is 227.

A Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll mark as 228 this document.

And all this is is the payroll records of Mr. Prince which show that the salary was $5,000, it shows what the withholding was.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: That is 228.

838

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: These were produced by the Lisa McPherson Trust.

THE COURT: These weren’t additional moneys.

MR. WEINBERG: No, it just shows what the salary was, 228, and they withheld —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q If you look at the checks, Mr. Prince, they are $3,552, starting in June of — of 2000, do you see that?

A Mmm, yes, I do.

Q And it is June, July, August, September, October, November, December —

THE COURT: Counselor — Counselor, just can you go from the beginning to the end?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q It begins in June — end of June of 2000 and ends — one is out of place — ends —

THE COURT: June ’01.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q June/01, except if you look at the other exhibit, Mr. Prince — if I could just approach, your Honor — the payroll records indicate that you would have received — you would have received a — one last payment on August 1, 2001 of $5,000 salary with all of the withholding. Do you see that?

839

A I’m trying to follow.

Q It is the last page. Right there (indicating).

August 1 —

A Oh, yeah. Okay.

Q All right? So that was probably the close-out payment or something?

A That was the last check. Yeah.

THE COURT: Counselor, from LMT again?

MR. WEINBERG: These are the LMT records, this is what they produced.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q So it appears you were paid a salary as an employee from June of 2000 until August of 2001 at $5,000 a month. Correct?

A Correct.

Q And after August 1 of 2001, you continued to get your $5,000 a month but it was from Ms. Brooks?

A Correct.

Q Now, did Ms. Brooks withhold from — I mean —

THE COURT: What could she withhold from? I mean, she was not paying him out of a business; she was giving him money.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s a good question.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did — what were you considered at that point when

840

you were getting this $5,000 a month from Ms. Brooks?

A What was I considered? Stranded in Clearwater.

All of the other staff had moved.

THE COURT: Was this a friend giving — giving you living money until you could get some other job?

THE WITNESS: Absolutely.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Was there some understanding how long that was going on?

A No.

Q Was — had there been discussions it was going to end?

A No.

Q Now, you have a monthly mortgage, obviously, because you haven’t sold this house yet, right?

A Correct.

Q Who paid you in May of 2002?

A It’s not here?

Q May of 2002. The last check from Ms. Brooks you said was April 4, 2002.

A Correct.

Q You said for years you needed $5,000 a month to live.

A Correct.

Q So my question is who paid —

841

your money to live in May of 2002?

A I think from the State of Florida.

Q What do you mean?

A I filed for unemployment.

Q Well, how did you do that?

THE COURT: Because he was unemployed.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q But you’d been unemployed since August of 2001.

A Yeah.

Q Or did you tell them that you had been employed since August of 2001 and just lost your job when you had this argument or disagreement with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks?

A Mr. Weinberg, it is actually quite a simple process. You go online, you tell them you are employed — unemployed, you put it in there, and they send you a check. You check in. You have to look for employment. I mean, that is what I know about.

Q And who did you say your last employer was?

A Lisa McPherson Trust.

Q And what did you say the circumstances were that you had lost your job?

A Mmm, I — I think — I think maybe the place was bankrupt, went out of business, closed shop. Something like that, you know.

842

Q Is there some application you have to fill out?

A Online, yes.

Q And is there — so it is all online, it is with the State of Florida?

A Yes, it is with the State of Florida online, yes.

Q And so since May of 2002, you have been on unemployment?

A Since late May of — yeah. Late May of 2002.

Yes.

Q So you are still on unemployment?

A No.

Q Well, when did that end?

A Well, when I worked out a new agreement with Mr. Dandar and came to appear as an expert and give testimony here, he gave me a check which I think he said he would send here, and at that point when you receive money — when you are employed and you are actually receiving money, whether it is self-employed or otherwise, that terminates unemployment.

So that check effectively terminated my unemployment.

Q And so you notified the authorities of that?

A Yes. And I haven’t received another check since.

Q How many checks did you get — where do you get it, from the State of Florida, is that where you get the

843

checks?

A Yes.

Q And how many checks did you get for unemployment?

A Mmm, well, they do it — I think I was getting like $293 a week or something like that. Then they would double them up so the checks were like $494, I would get two of those —

THE COURT: Were you getting weekly checks?

THE WITNESS: No, I had it every other week.

So I got $494 — I believe I received —

THE COURT: Do you know?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Then why don’t you say that?

THE WITNESS: Sorry. I don’t know.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q When did you get the first money from — when did you sign up with Mr. Dandar to be an expert again? What date?

A I don’t know.

Q Well, that can’t be long ago, so what is your best —

A Well, I don’t know the date. I don’t know.

Q What were the circumstances of you becoming an expert again?

A Mmm, you know, again, this whole thing was over.

844

People were going home. It was over. Your client took Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Minton as trophies and we are sitting here today and this brought me into this position here again today. So, you know, those are kinds of the circumstances.

THE COURT: Are you back as a consultant or expert or combination of the two?

THE WITNESS: I have been a combination of the two with him.

THE COURT: And what time did that start, about? Was it like —

THE WITNESS: Maybe a week ago, two weeks ago or however.

THE COURT: So between May of 2002 up until that time you were collecting unemployment?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And is there some agreement you executed with Mr. Dandar a week or two weeks ago?

A Yeah, that I participate in the case, I would help —

Q No, is there some written agreement?

A Oh, no.

Q And the day that it started is when you got the check. Is that when you became the expert, when you got the check?

845

A You know, I’m not — I’m not sure because —

THE COURT: As opposed to they talked, then they got a check —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m trying to date it. It is not that long ago. I’m trying to date it.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I mean, when it happened, did you — I mean, did this essentially happen simultaneously that somehow it was established that you were going to be the expert again and you negotiated what you needed?

A There was no — I’ll try to explain it as best as I can, Mr. Weinberg.

THE COURT: I don’t care. I don’t want to hear it, I’m not interested. I’m just not interested.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Could I ask the amount then? What is the agreement? Are you getting paid on monthly basis? Salary?

A We have no agreement like that. I just — you know, I will put in X amount of time, I’ll get through this hearing —

THE COURT: Are you going to bill him per hour, or what?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I am.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And how much have you received from Mr. Dandar?

846

A $4,000.

Q Is that just a retainer?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Are you keeping records now?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I am.

THE COURT: What is your hourly fee?

THE WITNESS: 150.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: I think this would be — I have a few other questions.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did anybody else, between the time that Ms. Brooks quit giving you money and the time that Mr. Dandar did give you money, did anybody else give you whatever you want to call it, expense money, living money, expert money, money?

A No.

THE COURT: Between the time Ms. Brooks —

MR. WEINBERG: — quit giving him the money in April of 2002 of this year and whenever it was Mr. Dandar gave this check.

THE COURT: Other than his unemployment?

MR. WEINBERG: Other than his unemployment.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did anybody else give you money?

A The answer is no.

847

MR. WEINBERG: I think that — you know, I’m sort of at the end of this section. If you want me to start another section I will, or we can —

THE COURT: Yes, I would like to go until about 12:15, if you don’t mind.

MR. WEINBERG: No.

THE COURT: Because we kind of got a late break.

MR. WEINBERG: No, I really don’t mind.

THE COURT: Gee, I thought you were about to say you were done.

MR. DANDAR: I thought so, too.

THE COURT: I was real excited.

MR. WEINBERG: Or I could put it a different way. Maybe I could have some time to collect my thoughts. No, I’m not done.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you have been asked before about —

THE COURT: Could I ask one question? I’m sorry.

MR. WEINBERG: Sure.

THE COURT: What is the number of the response from Mr. Dandar? Can somebody give me a number on that?

848

MR. DANDAR: 226.

THE COURT: Thank you. I forgot to mark it.

MR. WEINBERG: Which means that the — that the LMT —

THE COURT: I have everything else marked. I just didn’t have that marked.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You have been asked before and testified about going to Key West. Do you remember that?

A I don’t remember testifying about that.

Q Well, did you go to Key West?

A Yes. But I don’t remember testifying about it.

MR. DANDAR: It is outside of the scope of direct.

THE COURT: Well, I don’t know what he’s going to ask about it, but it is probably doubtful it is outside of the scope of direct but —

MR. WEINBERG: It is. It is.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And you were in Key West for what purpose?

A Vacation.

Q For a fishing trip is what you previously testified to.

849

A Yes, okay. And, you know, I don’t want to do this — if I have testimony, could you please just show it to me and ask me about it?

THE COURT: That is a fair question. I mean —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, let me ask a few questions and then I will show it to you because we do have — actually we’ll show you the video.

THE COURT: If he wants to see it, you show it to him now.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, this is it. He can look at it.

THE COURT: Then put it up then.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I need to ask him one question before.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: One series.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q In Key West, it didn’t have anything to do about Scientology or this case or cases against Scientology, is that right?

A Mmm, you know, we were there for a fishing trip.

I was there with Mr. Haverty, Mr. Haney, Mr. Ford Greene, Mr Dan Leipold, Mr. Dandar; Mr. Garko came out there. We all have a common interest, and it would be crazy for me to say that the subject of our work didn’t come up and was

850

discussed or whatever at some — you know, during the fishing trip.

So the — that is the best way I can answer that question.

THE COURT: So the answer is yes, you all discussed the case?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, let me play your testimony and then I’ll ask you about it.

THE COURT: What testimony? This is on direct?

MR. WEINBERG: No, it’s in his deposition under oath in this case on November 17 —

THE COURT: See, you misled — I think Mr. Prince and I both thought you were talking about on direct examination which is what Mr. Dandar said was outside the scope.

MR. WEINBERG: No, in this case about Key West.

THE COURT: But it was in his deposition?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. When you say testimony in this case, I’m going to assume you’re talking about direct.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.

851

THE COURT: So if it is something else, you need to identify it for him and for me.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: What page number is this going to be?

MR. WEINBERG: Right here. This is a transcript of where this comes from.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: May I have a transcript, too?

MR. WEINBERG: Oh, sure.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you go to Key West?

A Yes.

Q Who sent you to Key West?

A No one sent. I went.

Q Who paid for the trip?

A I paid for the majority of it while I was there, but it wasn’t — really not much to pay for. I paid to be on a boat to go out fishing. I paid —

Q Who — well, who gave you the money?

A I used my own money.

Q Well, where did that money come from?

852

A Money that I earned from working.

Q For FACTNet and Mr. Dandar and Mr. Leipold?

A I think we’ve covered this earlier. You know, I have a — you know — different businesses, as well as expert, and, you know, the money that I used for that particular trip came from money derived from income from work that I’ve done.

Q Including FACTNet, Mr. Dandar and Mr. Leipold, right?

A I’m not sure why you’re bringing up FACTNet. I thought we —

Q Is that right?

A No, that is wrong.

Q Well, when was the trip to Key West?

A Well, six weeks ago now.

Q And who was on the trip? What people were on the trip?

A Oh, you know, I really don’t want to discuss that because I was on a complete pleasure trip. It had nothing do with McPherson, or Wollersheim. Nothing. It had to do with fishing and having a good time. Okay?

Q Now —

A And I explained to you earlier that I am very reticent to bring up the names of people that I’m involved with that is activity outside of Scientology because of the

853

behavior of your client. How many times do we have to keep going over this?

Q Were you on the trip with Mr. Dandar? Or are you embarrassed about bringing his name up? Were you on the trip with Mr. Dandar?

A No, Mr. Dandar was not —

Q Answer yes or no?

A — on the trip. No.

Q Was Mr. Leipold on the trip?

A Mr. Leipold — Leipold was there, Mr. Weiner (sic). He was there.

Q Was Mr. Minton on the trip?

A No.

Q Ms. Young on the trip?

A No.

Q Vaughn Young on the trip?

A No.

Q Mr. Jacobsen on the trip?

A Who is Mr. Jacobsen?

Q You don’t know Mr. Jacobsen?

A No.

Q That is fine. Mr. Ward on the trip?

A No. No.

Q Did you talk about Lisa McPherson on the trip?

A Very little.

854

Q So Mr. Leipold went from California to Key West to just fish —

A Yes.

Q — with Jesse Prince?

A Yes. We went deep-sea fishing. We went 40 miles off the coast, caught fish like this. Had a ball.

Q And there was no planning session with regard to litigation. Is that correct?

A No.

Q Was Mr. Haney on the trip?

A Yes. And his son. And he learned to fish.

Excuse me. Now that we don’t have a question pending I would like to take a break. My leg is going to sleep.

Q We just broke ten minutes ago?

A Well, okay, I’m sorry, my leg is going to sleep.

I’ll take a two-minute break. Is that okay, Mr. Weiner (sic)?

Q Okay, take a break.

____________________________________

Q Now, I asked you if Mr. Dandar was in Key West with you. And you said no. You said no repeatedly. Is that correct?

A I don’t — if I did say no, I’m very sorry. He was not part of the trip. He came and appeared one day,

855

said, “Hi,” we had dinner and he left.

Q When you were outside did they — did they — Ms. Young remind you that you had made yet another mistake under oath? Did they tell you that?

A How could Ms. Young said — say that when I gave you testimony that she wasn’t there?

Q Well, who told you that then? Who told you — who corrected your — your false testimony that Mr. Dandar wasn’t there?

A I never gave false testimony. You asked me if Dandar was part of the trip that I went fishing. I said no.

Q And you were absolutely insistent that Mr. Dandar wasn’t there and yet he was in Key West?

A And came and had dinner and left. One time.

Q Flew down to Key West to have dinner and left.

MR. DANDAR: Objection, asked and answered and don’t answer it again.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did he stay in a hotel down there?

A I don’t know.

Q What do you mean, you don’t know?

A That means that I don’t have personal knowledge of it.

Q And you understand what personal knowledge is,

856

right?

A Oh, come on, please.

Q No, do you understand it, personal knowledge?

A I do not know if he was staying in a hotel there.

I was in a different place. I don’t know where he was.

Q How many — how long did you spend with him in Key West on that trip this summer?

A A dinner. Maybe 15, 20 minutes. Outside of dinner —

Q Dinner is usually at night, right?

A Correct.

Q Did you see him the next morning?

A No.

Q Now, was Mike Garko down there?

A Yes, he was. Dr. Garko was there.

Q Was Thom Haverty down there?

A Yes. He was.

Q So that is like the whole consulting team for the McPherson case?

A Mr. Garko was with Mr. Dandar.

Q So he just flew in for dinner?

A Came in and left.

Q Didn’t have anything to do with the Lisa McPherson case?

A No.

857

Q Who paid for your trip?

A As I gave testimony to earlier, I paid my own expenses to — Mmm — take the boat out. I went out on a boat several times. I paid about 50, 60 bucks a time. I bought beer, wine, food, cigarettes.

(End of playing of the video tape.)

______________________________________

THE COURT: Counselor, is it — is it important that —

MR. WEINBERG: We are demonstrating —

THE COURT: Right now we have testimony coming out, I paid for my trip.

MR. WEINBERG: We are playing it in context.

THE COURT: No, it is not. I see about a jillion pages. You are on Page 259 and I see it going straight through to Page 267. That is a lot of pages. And I see that you’re — there is a lot of consistent testimony here.

MR. WEINBERG: But, your Honor, when we play this, I think you’ll see that there is a lot of inconsistent statements.

THE COURT: Yes, you already played it. I’m saying why do I have to listen to the consistent testimony from a deposition, it is improper.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, because — because —

858

there has been a lot of argument, accusations in here about taking things out of context so we left it in context is what we did.

THE COURT: All right.

If you have any more like this, you — you cut and paste. You can give it all to me, go to where you want to go, but I don’t want to hear it —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: I have better things to do than listen to this man’s testimony two times when it is exactly the same both times. Now, there is differences and I’m interested in hearing the differences.

MR. WEINBERG: And it is different from the other sworn testimony before —

THE COURT: And I’m interested in hearing that.

I’m not interested in hearing that which is not inconsistent. Do I make myself clear?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes.

THE COURT: It is improper. All right.

MR. WEINBERG: We could play it on rebuttal case, and we thought it would be appropriate to play it here with Mr. Prince on the stand and get his explanation for the inconsistencies between this and —

859

THE COURT: I have no problem with your playing inconsistencies.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: That is called impeachment. I do have a problem with having to listen to Mr. Prince’s testimony on the stand and then listen to identical testimony in a deposition. Cut and paste it. You can give me the whole deposition, so if I want to read it in between, I can.

MR. WEINBERG: I apologize. Just play the rest — no, are we done?

That is fine.

THE COURT: I mean, there is more here and there may be more inconsistencies and I want you to play that —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand, and we don’t have it set up and I’ll go back and look at it at the break.

THE COURT: Let me look and I can see what you have underlined and that is probably the important part. I see I have two pages here not underlined.

MR. WEINBERG: The only stuff being played is the underlined stuff.

THE COURT: That is not true, Counsel, it is not true.

860

MR. DANDAR: And I don’t have anything underlined.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, then — then I should have followed the transcript.

THE COURT: Page 259, this is about the time I interrupted you, “Who paid for your trip down there?

“As I gave testimony to you earlier, I paid my own expenses. I went out on a boat several times –”

MR. WEINBERG: Wait a minute. I thought — point made. I really thought when I was — that I had this — only the stuff that was yellowed.

THE COURT: No.

MR. WEINBERG: That is why it was yellowed.

THE COURT: If there is something else in here you want to impeach, that is perfectly fine, you can catch it during lunch.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll catch it during lunch. I think I pretty much made my point.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, in Mr. Dandar’s testimony in this proceeding on May 3, 2002 —

A Not this?

Q No, it is not this.

A Okay.

861

Q On Page 90 — this is in his direct testimony when it first started at the beginning — I could hand this up.

THE COURT: If you are going to try to impeach this witness from Mr. Dandar’s testimony —

MR. WEINBERG: No, I’m going to ask him a question about it.

THE COURT: You don’t need to show him Mr. Dandar’s testimony or ask him about it. You can’t do it. If their testimony differs, it differs. You can bring it up, inconsistencies in their testimony, but you can’t show him Mr. Dandar’s testimony and say, “Is that true?”

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I take it that you did not spend hours and hours talking about Scientology strategy, the Lisa McPherson case and the other Scientology cases with Mr. Dandar or anyone else at the Key West meeting. Is that correct?

A That is correct. My recollection, I didn’t spend hours speaking to anyone about this. I mean, you know, there were a point in time when the attorneys were meeting, you know. And again, I don’t profess to be an attorney, I don’t try to be an attorney. I was there on a fishing trip, you know. Mr. Leipold has certain experience in dealing with Scientology. Mr. Ford Greene has certain experience with dealing with Scientology because of the cases he has

862

done. They had discussed with Mr. Dandar about that. This had nothing to do with me.

Q Well, you said Mr. Dandar in your testimony was only there for dinner one night for a few hours with Dr. Garko and flew back and there was no discussion about — about the case. That is what you said?

A You know —

Q Under oath. Correct?

A This is getting ridiculous, Mr. Weinberg. I mean, he flew in for dinner. He flew in. He brought in Mr. Garko. He had his own personal pilot. They were flying a little personal plane. They came, you know, while it was still light outside, you know, “Hi.” Thom Haverty’s wife is there and Captain Wayne’s wife is there, the boat. This is a social setting.

Q All right, so —

A There is nothing sinister about it.

Q So Mr. Dandar was not there for two or three or four days with Dr. Garko, was he?

A Not to my recollection. No.

Q Did you fly back to Tampa with Mr. Dandar?

A No, I did not.

Q And did you talk, on the trip in Key West — which you remember it was in August of 1999?

A I’ll take your word for it.

863

Q And do you remember that on August 20th of 1999 is when you wrote that David Miscavige affidavit that was used about him ordering the death of — letting — ordering or allowing her or causing her to die? Do you remember that?

A You got me all screwed up on the dates now. Could you just tell me again?

Q The testimony in this case is that the Key West trip was around August 8, 9, 10, 11 of 1999. Or 12th of 1999.

Q All right? You executed an affidavit — the affidavit in this case, part of what this hearing is about, on August 20 of 1998?

THE COURT: We are talking about that is the date he signed it?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes, that is the date he signed it.

THE COURT: You are not going to suggest to this witness that whole affidavit was written on the date it was —

MR. WEINBERG: I wasn’t going to ask that.

864

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Just ten or fifteen days later you executed this affidavit, right?

A Correct.

Q Now, did you participate in any conversations in Key West with anyone, whether it is Ford Greene, lawyer on Scientology cases, or Dandar Leipold, or Ken Dandar, or Dr. Garko or Thom Haverty, part of the — part of the Lisa McPherson team, did you have conversations with anybody down there about any of the assertions in this what became the August 20th affidavit?

A Not that I recall.

Q Did you have any discussions down there with anyone about adding David Miscavige as a strategy to the Lisa McPherson case?

A Not that I recall.

Q As far as you know, was anybody down there talking about the strategy of adding David Miscavige to the Lisa McPherson case?

A Not that I know of.

Q And was it —

A Or not that I recall or have memory of.

Q But you did leave Key West and go directly to Tampa, correct, after that trip that you call a fishing trip?

865

A I believe that — that that is correct.

Q And as soon as you got to Tampa, you started work — you must have started working on this affidavit. Right?

A I think that affidavit was a work in progress by the time I got to Tampa already. If you notice — I mean, that thing is pretty detailed. I have references. I have studied. You know, it takes me time to do these affidavits.

I just don’t sit and imagine it. I have my calendar, I have my notes or whatever and I sit and I do these things.

Q But the first check you got from Mr. Dandar was June 30, 1999. Correct?

A If that is what you just showed me, I’ll take your word for it. Okay.

Q So as you look back, as you think back, do you recall whether you were working on this affidavit before you went to Key West?

A I’m pretty sure that was a work in progress.

Q So you had already had discussions with people about adding Mr. Miscavige to the case?

A I don’t know. I don’t recall it so I’m going to say I don’t know.

THE COURT: The only thing I’m going to allow you to inquire about — remember we had this little business about the work product — is the meeting

866

which is at issue in this case, the meeting, whether Minton was there and whether Minton influenced that. Whether this man, as a consultant, paid or otherwise, had a conversation about adding David Miscavige is what I would have expected him to add. Nothing sinister about that.

THE COURT: Meetings? What meetings? The only person that I know of that was asked about the Key West meetings was you-all. Maybe he brought it up —

MR. WEINBERG: He brought it up on May 3rd.

You didn’t let me cross-examine him. Mr. Dandar is the one that brought up the Key West meeting, said that is where he —

THE COURT: Well, do you think I think all those people sat down there and didn’t talk about this case?

MR. WEINBERG: No, I don’t.

THE COURT: I don’t care what they said.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m just —

THE COURT: I mean, you know —

867

MR. WEINBERG: I —

THE COURT: You are acting as if you have a jury here that — I’m a judge that has been involved in this case very deeply, and as I tried to suggest to you on several occasions, I’m not an idiot.

MR. WEINBERG: I know that.

THE COURT: I know what lawyers do.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand that.

THE COURT: And I know if you get this many lawyers together, all of whom have Scientology cases, you put them on fishing trip or movie theater or whatever, the subject comes up and they talk about it.

MR. WEINBERG: And you couldn’t have said it better, and I’m making a record which I’m done with on this thing —

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: — indicating that this witness, that is what this — you know, this Paragraph 34 in the complaint is all about, his sworn affidavit, has told lies. You know, I’m using that —

THE COURT: I already told you and I told your team, save it for the jury. I don’t care if he told a bunch of lies or not. The law in Florida is if he qualifies as an expert, he can testify.

868

MR. WEINBERG: No, I understand your ruling. I’m —

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: This is for credibility purposes.

THE COURT: I understand.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. But I’m pretty much done with this area.

THE COURT: All right. Then let’s have lunch.

MR. WEINBERG: Good.

THE COURT: And as I said, you just have to forget — I hope you all don’t forget that I was a lawyer for a long time.

MR. WEINBERG: Judge, believe me —

THE COURT: Please.

MR. WEINBERG: — I am well aware of that.

THE COURT: Frankly, my findings will go to the court this time with a presumption of correctness.

This is not a de novo hearing —

MR. WEINBERG: No, I understand that.

THE COURT: — by the Second District.

MR. WEINBERG: No, but it has also been a long proceeding.

THE COURT: Well, I understand, but it seems to me as if part of what you want to do is have

869

Mr. Prince up here just forever. I made statements before about Mr. Prince. I’m aware of Mr. Prince’s bias. I mean, Mr. Minton, according to Mr. Prince, shows where I said this before, this is not new.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand, but I just started yesterday — I mean, yesterday late —

THE COURT: I understand. But you are spending an awful lot of time about pickets which I knew what they would say, with pickets that I knew would not be pretty, all as if you are trying to show me what I already know. You are wasting time here.

MR. WEINBERG: But —

THE COURT: We’ll be in recess until 1:30.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 12:00 to 1:35 p.m.)
______________________________________

870

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

Q Mr. Prince, what I was trying to do before the lunch break was finish up on the meetings that you had with Mr. Minton and Stacy Brooks.

A Okay.

Q I believe we left off with your meeting with them when things got a little testy at the hotel for dinner.

A At the Radisson.

Q At the Radisson. In my — your note attached to your affidavit, you said you met with me before you met with them that Sunday. So that was April 14th.

A Okay.

Q All right? So let’s go from then on. What happened after April 14th?

587

A Mmm —

THE COURT: I’m sorry, he met with you before he met with them?

MR. DANDAR: That same day. That is where this handwritten note —

THE COURT: Right. For some reason, I thought it was after. But it was before?

MR. DANDAR: On this particular day he met with me at the mall with Mr. Lirot. And that was April 14th.

THE COURT: In the afternoon? Then he went there in the evening?

MR. DANDAR: Then he went there.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What happened after April 14th?

A Mmm, well, contact again — and I think I mentioned I had the one phone conversation with Mr. Minton where I invited him over to my house.

But they — they talked to me — or got messages to me via my fiancee. They would talk to her.

And if anything happened — we wouldn’t talk, we were not talking.

Q And what messages did you receive from Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks that way?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Hearsay. That would have to be

588

hearsay. I mean, that would have nothing to do with Mr. Minton’s state of mind or anything in this proceeding, so you would have to, at the very least, bring in the other person.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So you never talked with Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks since then directly, one-on-one?

A I talked with Mrs. Brooks. Mmm, she just told me that everything was going to be fine, regardless of whether or not I agreed to go with them or participate in activities with them with Scientology. She just told me things were
going to be okay.

Q When did Ms. Brooks stop paying you your monthly income?

A Either March or April.

Q And you said before that you went to Denis deVlaming’s office and spoke with him, and he couldn’t help you because of the conflict of interest. Did you go to any law enforcement?

A Well, it’s not entirely true to say that Mr. DeVlaming couldn’t help me.

What Mr. DeVlaming did do is refer me to his brother because, again, I wanted to somehow get a federal law enforcement involved in this, since my perception was that the criminal activity — conspiracy and criminal activity happened at least in New

589

York, New Hampshire and Clearwater.

Mmm, he said that he would talk with a federal agent that he did know and get back with me. He — I guess maybe a day or so later, he had a conversation with the federal agent, Mr. Douglas DeVlaming.

And he told me, after speaking with an agent, they thought that it would make a difficult case because Mr. Minton was now on the stand lying, telling lies. If he changed his mind —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you ever meet personally with law enforcement?

A Yes, I did.

Q All right. Who did you meet with?

A I met with FDLE Agent Lee Strope.

Q Did you talk about Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks?

A I pretty much gave Mr. Strope a complete rundown of the meetings, with the dates similar to how I laid it out there in the affidavit. And after —

THE COURT: Mr. Strope is with what agency?

THE WITNESS: FDLE.

THE COURT: FDLE?

A And after speaking with him, he asked me to give Bob Minton a message. And the message was that if it is determined that you have perjured yourself on the stand,

590

that he would see to it that charges would be brought.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q This is Mr. Strope telling you to talk to Mr. Minton?

A This is a message Mr. Strope asked me to give Mr. Minton specifically.

Q Did you give him that message?

A Mmm, I wrote — I hand-wrote what he said. I gave it to my fiancee and she read it to Mr. Minton over the phone.

Q Okay.

THE COURT: Mr. Prince, is it your testimony here today under oath an agent of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement asked you to deliver a message to someone?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Any other meetings with law enforcement?

A Not about this specific incident.

Q Okay. Now, what was your impression, after meeting with Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton, on the meetings you have just mentioned, all of these meetings —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection to the form. What was his impression?

THE COURT: Yes. What does that mean?

591

MR. DANDAR: I didn’t finish my sentence.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What was your impression as to who was the person who was creating the scenario that I told Mr. Minton to lie?

A Mr. Rinder.

Q And what is the basis of that? What is the basis of your impression it is Mr. Rinder?

A Because that is what they said.

Q Who said?

A Bob and Stacy.

Q All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, could we just — I mean, is that — your Honor, so his testimony is that at some point Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks said that Mike Rinder said for Mr. Minton to lie?

THE COURT: Yes. That is his testimony.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we date that testimony, please?

THE COURT: Mr. Prince, is that your testimony?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.

THE COURT: If you could look at your affidavit and tell us which one of these conversations that that conversation took place.

THE WITNESS: Okay. Let me see if I see it

592

here. I don’t seem to have my affidavit up here.

THE COURT: You don’t? I think I have it right here, if it will help.

MR. DANDAR: Well, I have the affidavit right here. I’m sorry. I was looking at it instead of listening to the Court.

THE WITNESS: This would have had to have happened sometime after the date that I mentioned on Page 5, Line 16, Paragraph Number 11 of the 3rd of April or 2nd of April, sometime after that time period.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q After this — after the 2nd or 3rd of April?

A Correct.

Q All right. Did Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks tell you this on more than one occasion?

A Well, the subject of the meetings — after they returned to Clearwater with Mr. Bunker April 2nd, the many times that I met with them, the subject of the conversations concerned what they were asked — or what they were being asked to do, what they wanted me to do.

So that was a continuing theme until, you know, the point that it finally broke off, because I didn’t, I guess, qualify to meet with the Scientologists or speak with them about this myself. But it was a continuing theme of

593

conversations.

THE COURT: I believe that, in fairness, Mr. Prince may have testified to some of this yesterday, too.

MR. DANDAR: I think so maybe.

THE COURT: And may have dated some of this yesterday. I’m looking through his affidavit. I am remembering some of his testimony from yesterday.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, yesterday you talked about Volume 0 and 00. Do you recall that? You looked in the book Introduction To Ethics and you said —

A Yes.

Q — what you were looking for may be in Volume 0 and 00?

A Yes.

Q And there are a bunch of books over there. Are there any of the books you want to refer the Court to?

A Sure, if I could just walk over there.

MR. DANDAR: Is that all right, Judge?

THE COURT: Yes. By the way, Ms. Greenway asked if she could take my picture. You can’t take pictures when court is in session. So I gave her permission to come in and take pictures when court

594

wasn’t in session of whatever she wanted to take pictures for. But when court is in session you cannot take pictures unless you are connected with the media and you are a pool photographer. Then you can.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q No other books?

A No.

Q All right.

A This is — first off, I would like to say yesterday that I said that this was a crime for a person to give testimony about Scientology. I actually misspoke. It is a suppressive act to do that, according to this document here, suppressive acts, suppression of Scientology, Scientologists, the fair game law. And what it states specifically is —

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. It is 553, what I’m going to make reference to.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Could we have the date on that book?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Copyright on the front?

THE COURT: Would it matter with these policies —

MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, some, it may.

THE WITNESS: This is copyright 1970 through — what is it, 1950, it looks like. These are all of the copyright notices here.

THE COURT: Okay. I’m going to let you-all take a look at it.

MR. WEINBERG: Now? Or —

THE COURT: No. Let him go ahead and have his testimony, and then before cross-examination you-all can look at the book.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So a suppressive act is someone saying they want to leave Scientology?

A Yes. And testifying as a hostile witness against Scientology in public is a suppressive act.

596

Q All right. That has to do with testifying?

A Correct.

Q What about leaving Scientology or saying you want to leave?

A Mmm, yesterday I showed the reference and we went through that. It’s a high crime to publicly depart Scientology.

Q This may be something I already marked. Let me show you what has been marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 133. CS Series 22.

Can you identify that Exhibit 133?

A Yes. This is an HCO bulletin of 28 November, 1970, Mmm, subtitled “CS Series 22.” The “CS Series” means case supervisor series. It’s — it’s a series that is a staple or basic for persons that are supervising auditing in Scientology. And this document refers to the subject of psychosis.

Q And this document came from the PTS/SP course book you read yesterday. Is that correct?

A Correct.

Q Okay. Now —

THE COURT: Who is permitted to take that course? Maybe you asked it before, but, I mean, if I’m a new Scientologist, new public member, can I go register for that course?

597

THE WITNESS: You certainly could. Any Scientologist in good standing —

THE COURT: Could take that course?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q This course book also contains the search and discovery bulletin?

A I believe it does.

Q Okay. Now, this particular document, Exhibit 133, CS Series 22, does this have anything to do with people wanting to leave?

A Well, if you turn to the second page, it talks about the easiest ways for a case supervisor to detect the insane, and we go down here to Number 6, it says: “They often seek transfers or wish to leave.”

Q Now, does this apply to staff as well as public members?

A Absolutely.

THE COURT: I think this is already in evidence, isn’t it?

MR. DANDAR: I’m not sure. You told me to mark this yesterday as an exhibit.

THE COURT: Well, now that I’m looking at it, I’m thinking I read it before. But if you are not

598

sure, you want to introduce it again, why, that is all right.

MR. DANDAR: I’m really not sure.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: I know we talked about this yesterday.

THE COURT: I’m not positive if this was the document, but I have read some of this before.

MR. DANDAR: Yes. It is quite possible.

MR. WEINBERG: We have no problem, but the next-to-last sentence says: “The insane can be helped, they are not hopeless.” We don’t have a problem with this. But the introspection rundown comes after this policy.

THE COURT: But you have no objection to this being introduced?

MR. WEINBERG: No.

MR. DANDAR: We move it into evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: It was referred to in the introspection rundown which was introduced three or four years later, this policy.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Speaking of the introspection rundown, Mr. Prince, speaking of your experience, expertise, is there any part of

599

the introspection rundown that is considered religious?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection to his competence to this because Mr. Prince previously testified he wasn’t trained on the introspection rundown and never — as an auditor never did any introspection rundown.

THE COURT: I thought he did.

THE WITNESS: That is correct. I did. I never was — I never stated that I was not trained on the introspection rundown.

THE COURT: I’m sorry, what?

THE WITNESS: I never stated I was not trained on the introspection rundown. That is false. I am very trained on the introspection rundown.

MR. WEINBERG: What he said was he participated in an isolation watch, not as the auditor, you know, but as one of the people staying with Teresita.

THE COURT: Is isolation watch and introspection rundown the same?

MR. WEINBERG: It is part, Step whatever it is, 0, 00.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: This will kind of answer the question, I think.

600

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So, Mr. Prince, is there parts or all of the introspection rundown that is religious? A religious practice?

A Mmm, in the very first bulletin about the introspection rundown, L. Ron Hubbard describes it as a new technical breakthrough that marveled something else of the 20th century, I forget specifically what it says there. But it was hailed as a researched scientific discovery for handling insanity.

MR. WEINBERG: So, your Honor, is what Mr. Dandar is doing is challenging whether or not the introspection rundown is part of the religion of Scientology? Because if he is, I think that has already been decided in this case and it is not appropriate and we should not be wasting our time on it.

THE COURT: Haven’t we decided that — or — I don’t know because I don’t know — I saw a motion once that dealt with religiocity. I didn’t hear any of that.

MR. DANDAR: That was not the —

MR. LIEBERMAN: But you have stated several times, your Honor, that there is no question in this case as to the religious nature of Scientology or

601

religious nature of the introspection rundown.

THE COURT: Okay. I know I have stated that I have no question on the — that the Church of Scientology is a religion and it is a recognized religion in the Church. And I have no question in my mind that Lisa McPherson was undergoing some sort of introspection rundown. I didn’t know whether I said that introspection rundown is part of the religion of the Church. I don’t even know if that is a call for me to make, to tell you the truth. I would suspect the Church doctrine would tell us whether it is or isn’t.

MR. LIEBERMAN: That is correct. And the Church characterizes what is religious practice.

THE COURT: I don’t know if I have seen that or not. I know we have a Mr. Rice affidavit. I haven’t looked at it in some time.

MR. LIEBERMAN: And he quite clearly places it within the Scientology practice. In fact, every part of Scientology, by definition, is part of Scientology belief and practice and is not a matter for the Court to challenge what is characterized by the Church as this religion.

THE COURT: I am going to let him answer this. I think he already has answered it, but I don’t know

602

we’re going to go there. And certainly one answer isn’t going to get it there.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, Mr. Hubbard called it scientific breakthrough?

A That is correct.

Q Did he ever call it religious practice?

A Never.

Q Did he call auditing a religious practice?

A No.

Q Oh.

A Not to my knowledge. I mean, this whole business of religion — I don’t know, you know, it is kind of — has kind of reared its head in Scientology every now and again. When I was here at the Flag Service Organization in 1979, there was a scare — a cold war scare of some nuclear threat and conscription in the Army and on and on. This is what we were told. So all of the staff had to do a two-week course called the minister’s course where you are instantly trained to be a minister. This was part of — a program which, in part, was to kind of improve or create a religious image for Scientology.

But if you will notice, in every document that Mr. Hubbard writes about Scientology, whether or not it is a

603

green —

THE COURT: I don’t want to hear this. The United States Government, State of Florida, on and on down, determined Scientology is a religion, the Church of Scientology is a church. I don’t care what they used to think, what they used to say. It doesn’t matter. That is it.

MR. DANDAR: What I’m — I was getting at is just the introspection rundown itself.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q The part of the introspection rundown talking about get some rest —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could I —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q — make sure you eat —

MR. WEINBERG: This is precisely why Mr. Prince should not be an expert, considered an expert in Scientology, because as he sits here today, he still is sitting there saying it is not even a religion or a church. He doesn’t recognize it —

THE COURT: He wasn’t. He was talking about some things that were said back in the 1970s when they were all sitting around talking —

MR. WEINBERG: He just said that — well, I

604

don’t want to argue with you. I mean, it — that is where he was going with this and that is what this — that is what this is about.

MR. DANDAR: It is not what this is about. I just asked him what I’m asking him now, the introspection rundown, the part that talks about resting and eating — resting and eating, something else —

THE COURT: 0, 00.

MR. DANDAR: Yes, those two steps.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In your experience within the Church of Scientology, was that ever considered a spiritual or religious part of Scientology?

MR. LIEBERMAN: Your Honor, again, this is unconstitutional inquiry. You can’t bifurcate a religious practice and say part is and part isn’t. To just even hear this testimony is an unconstitutional attack on the religion.

THE COURT: Mr. Lieberman, your objection on that is preserved.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Thank you.

A Well, you know, since — you know, people that are atheists or other ideas also rest and sleep. You know, it never came to me that this was a religious experience to

605

rest and eat.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, and in your knowledge of Scientology, if someone is injected with Valium or chloral hydrate, are they eligible to have auditing?

A According to — Mmm — the HCO bulletin entitled Model Session —

Q How do you spell that?

A Model, M-O-D-E-L, model session, a person who has had drugs or who has used drugs continuously is not eligible for auditing until six weeks after the period of taking the drugs.

Q Now, in your experience with Teresita, you said Dr. Dink, Hubbard’s doctor, came out and injected her with some kind of drug?

A Correct.

Q And she went to sleep?

A Correct.

Q How soon after that did she have auditing?

A Within hours after awaking.

Q Was that within the written policy?

A Is that what now? I’m sorry.

Q Is that per policy to have an auditing right after you have slept off the effects of the drug?

A Well, in the introspection rundown bulletin, it

606

states that each program is tailored specifically for the individual. So to that degree, if the person had to sleep first in order to get auditing, they would get the auditing, but then there is also later references in Scientology technology which state that in a period after the auditing that was delivered, while the person was on drugs, you could then go back and check those areas again to make sure that everything is fine.

Q Okay. Let me show you Exhibit 134. And do you recognize where this copy of this Page 258 comes from?

A Yes. This comes from the Hubbard Administrative Dictionary.

Q And what — how does it define the phrase “high crimes”?

A It says: “High crimes. 1. These consist of publicly departing Scientology or committing suppressive acts. Cancellation of certificates, classifications and awards and becoming fair game are amongst the penalties which can be leveled for this type of offense as well as those recommended by Committees of Evidence.”

MR. DANDAR: Okay. That is all of the questions I have.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may inquire.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.

607

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince, David Miscavige busted you from your position of authority — your executive position of authority in the RTC — in March of 1987, didn’t he?

A Correct.

THE COURT: I’m sorry, you just got started.

Did you want to introduce this 134?

MR. DANDAR: Yes, sir. In fact —

MR. WEINBERG: We object to that. I would like to see the dictionary, see what the date of the dictionary was.

MR. DANDAR: Do you have it here? In fact, I just realized, unless you want to do this later, there are a bunch of things I marked and didn’t move them into evidence.

THE COURT: I’ll go ahead and let you do that —

MR. DANDAR: Later?

THE COURT: — later. But don’t forget.

MR. DANDAR: Right. Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Should I start over?

THE COURT: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Mr. Prince, David Miscavige busted you from your

608

position — your executive position of authority in the RTC in March of 1987, didn’t he?

A Correct.

Q And at that time you were removed from your post, the last executive post you ever held in the Church of Scientology. Correct?

A Correct.

Q And that post, you said, was deputy inspector general external. Right?

A Right.

Q Now, you were removed because you had supported Pat Broeker and Annie Broeker and Vicki Aznaran in their effort to change Scientology tech. Correct?

A That is categorically false.

Q That was precisely what occurred, that Pat Broeker, who had designated himself the loyal officer, was in the process of changing, among other things, the Scientology grade chart, right? That is what he was doing?

A That is categorically false.

Q So Mr. Broeker wasn’t doing that?

A Correct.

Q And you never acknowledged that Mr. Broeker did that?

A Correct.

Q So Mr. Broeker wasn’t off on his own, trying to

609

change the religion of Scientology, after Mr. Hubbard died?

A Well —

Q Yes? Or no?

A Excuse me. Let me answer the question.

THE COURT: Well, I’ll tell you how this works on cross-examination. Go ahead and answer the question, but if you feel you have to explain your answer, you are allowed to do that after you have answered it.

A In other words, I was not there — let me — I was not there. I didn’t see him changing anything. And, again, I was going to say, I have heard some hearsay about it. Since you vehemently object about it, I won’t comment about it, but I — you know, I haven’t personally been with Mr. Broeker when he’s altering Scientology technology.

Q When you were in the RTC prior to March of 1987, in that year after Mr. Hubbard died, you became aware of the

610

fact that some point in time that Mr. Broeker was changing and altering Scientology tech, weren’t you?

A Incorrect.

Q You became aware of the fact that Vicki Aznaran was part of an effort to change Scientology tech, weren’t you?

A Absolutely incorrect.

Q And what happened in March of 1987 is that Mr. Broeker was removed from all authority. Correct?

A Mr. Broeker was removed from authority.

THE COURT: Wasn’t? Or was?

THE WITNESS: He was, your Honor.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Annie Broeker, his wife, was removed from all positions of authority. Correct?

A To my knowledge, that is correct.

Q Your boss, Vicki Aznaran, was removed from her position of authority. Correct?

A Correct.

Q And you were removed?

A Correct.

Q And you were at that time — at that point in time, you went from what you described as an executive position with some authority in the — in RTC. Right?

A Correct.

611

Q To no authority whatsoever?

A No. That is incorrect.

Q From — for the next five years after March of 1987, did you ever hold a position where someone was junior to you? You know what I mean by that?

A Yes, I do. And, yes, I have.

Q I mean, you were, what, a machine operator after that?

A Mmm, no. I worked on post-production, pre-production and post-production for films.

Q That was one of the things you did, and you were a Cinemix, was that your job?

A No.

Q What was your job?

A My job was like an assistant engineer, assistant sound mixer. Again, I state I worked for post-production and pre-production for films and videos.

Q During that period of time you were in the RPF a couple of times. Correct?

A Incorrect.

Q How many times were you in the RPF?

A I was in the RPF two times, but not that period of time.

Q You were in the RPF in March of 1987. Correct?

A Correct.

612

Q All right. Until what, the end of 1987?

A Mmm, I think it was — I wasn’t in there a very long time. I think maybe four months.

Q By the way, there is no higher crime in Scientology than changing the tech. Correct?

A That is incorrect.

Q Well, what would be a higher crime than changing Mr. Hubbard’s scriptures?

A Placing Scientology and Scientologists at risk.

Q One of the highest crimes in Scientology is to alter the tech. Correct?

A It is a high crime to do that. Yes.

Q Now, for the next — for those five years after you were busted — and that was the day you claimed, by the way, that you pulled these guns on David Miscavige and threatened to kill him?

A You didn’t mention a specific day. What day are you talking about?

Q Well, what day are you talking about when you were busted?

THE COURT: Without worrying too much about the date, the date you testified about when you were rousted from bed or got out of bed and went and got the guns, that is on the same day, right?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I’m sorry.

613

THE COURT: That is the day you were busted?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: That is what he was referring to.

THE WITNESS: Okay. I’m sorry. I just didn’t understand the question.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q That is the same day you claim you pulled these guns on David Miscavige and you threatened to kill him.

Correct?

A I didn’t threaten to kill Mr. Miscavige. What — maybe you have a wrong idea about what happened there.

I came there to defend myself. Twelve people were attacking me, were trying to hold me. Because I do know karate and have a black belt in it, I was able to get them away from me until I went and got protection for myself.

Q So then these twelve people that were attacking you let you go back to your room, get these two loaded guns?

A They didn’t know where I was going.

Q That didn’t really happen, did it, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, it did.

Q You didn’t pull guns on David Miscavige.

A Yes, it did.

Q So this is the person you say you could still be friendly with?

A You know, Mmm — yes. And I need to explain

614

something here because, you know, Mr. Weinberg, you and I have been around and around on this in front of Judge Moody. So, you know, you are giving me the exact same questions and I’ll sit here and be patient with you, but I think the record reflects we have done this one or two times before.

THE COURT: See, I haven’t heard it. This is my hearing, so we’ll do it again.

MR. DANDAR: Explain yourself.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q So you contend that you really did go back to your room, get two loaded weapons, and walk back and enter a room and point them directly at David Miscavige?

A No, I never walked back into a room. By that time —

Q You ran back into the room?

A Would you like me to explain it? I —

Q Explain it.

MR. DANDAR: Wait. Wait. Objection.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you —

MR. DANDAR: He needs to explain it.

Mr. Weinberg —

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll withdraw that question.

615

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you point two loaded guns —

MR. DANDAR: That is not fair.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q — at David Miscavige?

A No, I did not.

Q Who did you point them at?

A I had the one gun on my hip and the .45 in my hand. And they stood this way. The assault rifle never was pointed at anyone. It was just on my hip like this. And I had the .45.

And Mr. Miscavige, when he saw me, walked directly up to me with those guns in my hand and said, “Jesse, we are friends. Let’s talk.”

So I don’t think he felt that threatened. And I think that Judge Moody pointed that out to you the last time we were doing this.

Q I mean, no one would feel threatened when they had just busted somebody from position and the person got so mad to go back to the room and get two loaded guns and walk into a room. You can’t imagine anybody would be threatened by that, would they?

A I think that is a mischaracterization of what happened.

Q Well, my question is was there a particular reason

616

why you never told that story until — until you started getting paid to be a witness in the FACTNet case in 19 — whatever it is, 1998?

Why you waited all those years to tell that story?

A Mmm, I don’t know how to answer that question, Mr. Weinberg. You are associating things that don’t associate. You are associating with me being paid telling stories. And there is no association there.

Q Well, is there a particular reason, in the years after this alleged incident took place, that took you until 1998 to first tell this story about pulling guns on David Miscavige?

MR. DANDAR: Object to the form. It makes no sense. Telling stories where? Under oath? In a deposition? To his friends?

THE COURT: I don’t, either, because I don’t know whether you are talking about the first time he ever testified about that, and if that is the first case he was ever involved in, that is the first time he ever testified about that.

MR. WEINBERG: I —

THE COURT: I’ll tell you one thing —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to —

THE COURT: — don’t get ahead of me because you want to go at this witness.

617

MR. WEINBERG: You are right.

THE COURT: I won’t have it.

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: I won’t have you really cutting this man off. I mean, I know you want to get where you want to go. But you’ll have to go slow.

And, Mr. Prince, whatever you told Judge Moody, I haven’t heard it, I haven’t seen too much of the transcript before Judge Moody, so I don’t want to hear what I — I already told Judge Moody this, I am not Judge Moody.

THE WITNESS: I understand.

THE COURT: If he asks you a question, unless I tell him, “You can’t ask that question,” just answer, even if you have already answered it before.

Okay?

THE WITNESS: Okay. Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Let’s go.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You were interviewed by Earle Cooley while still in the Church in 1988, weren’t you, in relation to another lawsuit?

A I would have to see something about that. I’m not sure what you are talking about.

Q You didn’t say anything about the guns to him, did

618

you?

A Again, I would have to see what you’re talking about.

Q Well, you mention the 1994 interview with Mr. Cooley. You didn’t say anything about the guns to him in that interview, did you?

A I mean, you know, you are mixing apples and oranges. I mean, I don’t understand what you are asking me. I mean, I have told that story long before 1998 to my friends, my family, people that I know. I mean, you know, it isn’t like here is some money, let’s tell this story. I beg to differ with the way you are characterizing what happened here.

Q The reason you told the story to Mr. Minton in April of this year was to threaten him as to what you would do as to what kind of person you were? I mean, what did you tell him about it for?

A I told him that story, as I gave testimony yesterday, to show that Scientology, more than likely, will never keep or honor an agreement with anyone. It wasn’t to say I’m going to run and shoot you with guns. It was to give him an example to show him that Scientology will never honor an agreement.

Q Now, you would agree that the positions that you held after you were busted were extremely low positions in

619

the Church of Scientology?

A I would beg to differ on that, as well.

Q Now, you were — you were so humiliated, apparently, by Mr. — what you claim Mr. Miscavige did in March of 1987 that you pulled these guns on him. That is what it was about, wasn’t it?

A Absolutely not. And even as we have been sitting here, I think I made it clear to you why I went and got those guns. It wasn’t humiliation. It was being attacked.

Q You were —

A Physically attacked.

Q You resented the fact that you had been busted?

A I resented the fact I was being physically attacked by people that used to be my friends.

Q No. My question is did you resent the fact that you had been busted from your executive position in RTC?

A And I’ll answer the question it isn’t so much that I resented the fact that —

THE COURT: Come on, Mr. Prince, of course you must have been annoyed. I don’t know why we’re playing a semantics game. Anybody would be annoyed if they were busted from the position they thought —

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor, that isn’t right.

I think that deserves clarification because I was

620

pretty much tired of that activity that I had been involved in, in Scientology. I was ready for a change. I was ready to be done with that position because that — that position responsibility entailed being involved in criminal activity.

This is something that I had not experienced in Scientology prior to going to Gilman, Hot Springs and working at that level. To me, Scientology was something different than what I was doing.

So, no, it wasn’t a big deal for me, you know. I was already wanting to be away from that responsibility.

But what was a big problem for me was twelve people grabbing me, because I had an earlier incident of that happening in Scientology where six people grabbed me and locked me in a room for three months, and I ended up staying 16 years. So that had precedent over that position I was being removed from.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q So you were relieved by the fact you were busted from your position?

A I would not say that that is true. I have no vehement dislike for him. I dislike the things that he does. But I don’t envy his position. He’s the leader of a religion. He has a lot of responsibility. That doesn’t give you license to be a criminal, though.

Q You spent the last four years, ever since you met apparently sometime in the summer of 1998, started getting paid by, ever since you met Mr. Minton, you spent the last four years trying to destroy David Miscavige, haven’t you?

A That is incorrect.

Q You have picketed where you have spoken vilely and obscenely about Mr. Miscavige, haven’t you?

A Yes, I have.

Q You have picketed various Churches of Scientology around the country and even in the world, correct?

A That is incorrect. I never picketed an organization outside of the United States.

Q Just in this country?

A Correct.

Q You have threatened David Miscavige in these pickets, haven’t you?

A I need you to clarify what you mean by threatened for me, please.

Q Threatened to do harm to him.

A I have jokingly alluded to it, yes, I have.

622

Q You thought it was funny?

A Yes, I did.

Q And did you think it was funny when you were outside the various Churches of Scientology, including what you call the mecca of Scientology, holding signs and shouting obscenities about the leader? You thought that was funny, too?

A I — I think you would have to show me or present evidence that I was holding a sign, shouting obscenities.

Q Oh, we will, Mr. Prince.

A Okay. I would like to see that.

Q Did you think that was funny?

A I would like to see the evidence, please, sir.

Q Would you consider, sir — I mean, I think you said that Mr. Minton was the — something basically the most harassed person you’d ever seen, something to that order?

A Something along that order, correct.

Q Would you consider what you and Mr. Minton and Ms. Greenway and Mr. Alexander and Mr. Oliver and the other folks at the LMT — would you consider what you were doing harassing Scientology?

A Well, what were we doing that was supposed to be harassing?

Q I mean —

THE COURT: His question to you is whatever it

623

was you were doing, would that be, in your mind, harassing Scientology?

THE WITNESS: Well, I guess to clarify it, if it meant picketing, does that mean harassing Scientology? It has a broader meaning to me. It means I’m exercising my First Amendment rights as a citizen to protest.

Mmm, if you want to call that harassing Scientology, I call it exercising my freedom.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I’m asking you, because remember you talked about the harassment time line of Mr. Minton?

A Yes.

Q Do you remember talking about that?

A Yes.

Q And my question to you, if — if we put all of your pickets and all Mr. Minton’s pickets and all your postings and all Mr. Minton’s postings and all of the postings of these folks that have been in and out of the LMT and all the pickets of them on a time line, do you think that time line might be somewhat larger than this Minton harassment time line?

A I think it would be minuscule and it would pale by comparison.

Q By the way, are you part of an anti-Scientology

624

movement?

A I have never been part of an anti-Scientology movement.

Q Are you an anti-Scientologist?

A No, I am not.

Q What do you consider yourself?

A I consider myself in the instant case where I’m sitting right here today an expert witness concerning Scientology.

Prior to that, I worked in an establishment whereby I helped people who had been victimized by Scientology.

Q And would you consider Mr. Minton to be an anti-Scientologist during those four years that you were part of the A team, I think you said?

A I consider Mr. Minton to be an activist.

Q An activist?

A Yes.

Q What is that?

A You tell me what it is. Do you need to know what the word means? I mean, he was an —

Q What do you mean —

A — activist concerning —

Q What do you mean when you say he was an activist?

A He was an activist ensuring the rights, basic

625

human rights, that are accorded to us through our constitution.

I think Mr. Minton got started on his relationship with Scientology when he found out a Scientologist was trying to remove the name “Scientology” from a newsgroup — or at least this is the way he explained it to me. And how
lawyers and raids and things would come to even discuss Scientology, which is how I knew it from being in Scientology.

I knew if you ever spoke about Scientology outside of Scientology, you would get clobbered. So to actually see people doing it openly on the Internet was —

THE COURT: That is well past the answer. You don’t have to — we have to try to get through this.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: He simply asked you to define what an activist was. And I think you have done that.

THE WITNESS: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, when did you begin — when did you begin your work against Scientology? What date or time?

A Mmm, I began to give testimony concerning Scientology, to the best of my recollection, in the FACTNet case.

Q Specifically, up until I — I think you said you

626

considered yourself a Scientologist until, I think you said, 1997. Correct? Isn’t that what you said in your testimony?

A I think maybe ’96, I said.

Q All right. So you considered yourself a Scientologist after you left the Church of Scientology in 1992, after you say that you were — you said all those horrible things happened to you in the five-year period, you still considered yourself a Scientologist in ’93, ’94, ’95 and ’96. Correct?

A I think I should clarify that for you, if that is okay. I think that I still had Scientology values. I think that I still respected some of the tenets of Scientology, and I freely associated with Scientologists.

Q Well, you were working for a public member of Scientology for several years, right?

A Several years is incorrect.

Q How many years?

A Maybe one.

Q This is the job that the Church had helped you get after you left the Church where you were making $60,000 or $70,000 a year. Was that your testimony?

A I think you are mis-characterizing what happened. No, that is not my testimony. The Church didn’t help me do anything. It never has.

Q Well, just tell us one of those Scientology values

627

that you — that you continue to accept and feel close to after you left the Church of Scientology.

A That man — man is a spiritual entity. That — Mmm — man is capable of seemingly — seemingly more capable than is realized and those potentials can be cultivated and used and expanded on.

Q Any other ones?

A You know, some of the organical principles about the importance of organization, the importance of schedules. You know, these kind of things.

Q When you were a Scientologist, you believed, did you not, that psychiatric problems were spiritual in nature. Correct? That is what you believed? And could be dealt with spiritually through the religion of Scientology. You believed that when you were a Scientologist, didn’t you?

A Yes, I did.

Q And that is what Scientologists believe, don’t they?

A I can’t speak for all Scientologists. I know that, you know, as you are trained in Scientology, you accept more and more of what you read, and it’s a progression, it is a degradation of belief system, I guess.

But I couldn’t say that everyone believes that.

Q Well, you could say that Scientologists — no Scientologist would want to be committed to a mental

628

institution. You can say that, can’t you, from your years as a Scientologist?

A Mr. Weinberg, I can say that about Scientologists and anyone else. There is no one that I know that is aching to be committed to an institution.

Q But I’m asking you from when you were a Scientologist —

A Uh-huh?

Q — the last thing that you would have — you would have rather shot yourself than be committed to a mental institution?

A Absolutely not. I mean, that is unreasonable. It is irrational.

Q Well, can you think of anything worse, as a Scientologist, than to be committed to a mental institution?

Can you just answer that question?

A Rehabilitation Project Force, maybe.

Q One of the fundamental principles of the Church is — is the Church’s abhorrence with psychiatry and mental health treatment. Correct?

A Well, you know, Mr. Weinberg —

Q Can you just answer that question?

A I used to believe that is the answer. I used to believe that. But I found, from Mr. Hubbard’s autopsy report that I had a copy of, that he himself was taking

629

psychiatric medication —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Move to strike.

A — in his life. So maybe —

THE COURT: Stop. There is an objection. You have to stop.

MR. WEINBERG: It is not responsive to the question. It was a very simple question. Yes or no.

MR. DANDAR: I would say this is outside of the scope of direct and the issues.

THE COURT: It is not outside the scope of direct and not outside the scope of the issues but, quite frankly, this is not helping me any.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: It is an interesting banter between you and Mr. Prince and —

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll go on.

THE COURT: — this might be of interest to a jury, but it really isn’t of interest —

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: — to me.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Since you have met Bob Minton, all of the money that you have received since June, other than this apparently $4,000 that you just got from Mr. Dandar, that

630

you have received since June, July, of 1998, up until April of 2002, came directly or indirectly from Mr. Minton, didn’t it?

A That is incorrect.

Q And all of the money — all of the money that you have received in that period of time you received as a result of your work about or against or involving Scientology?

A That is incorrect.

Q Correct?

A That is incorrect.

Q What is incorrect about that statement?

A I think that — Mmm — that all of the money that I have had during those periods of time derived from those activities, that is — specifically is incorrect about it.

Q What, 99 percent of it? 95 percent of it?

A You know, I have turned over my financial records to you. I think they speak for themselves.

Q All right. Let me play you — because you asked me to — let me play you a video — some videos and maybe this will refresh your recollection. I’ll ask you some questions about it.

A All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Get the first one.

MR. DANDAR: We’re going to object. If he

631

plays the video that they would like to play from the Boston picket, I demand that they play the whole video so that you, Judge, can see what Mr. Prince was responding to in that very vile video that you may have already seen.

You only saw their version of it. There is like two, three, four minutes of extremely vile language coming from ministers of the Church of Scientology to bull bait Mr. Prince into responding the way he did on video. So if they are
going to do that, they need to play the whole thing.

MR. WEINBERG: That is not the one I’m playing, first of all —

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: — to make it easy. Secondly, if he wants to do something later, he can.

THE COURT: There is a rule of completeness which we’ll get into when we get to trial. At a trial, if somebody will try to pick and choose, I’m probably going to insist on the rule of completeness in an appropriate case.

But in this hearing, if they play something and you think I need to see it all, make a little note, tell them to keep it there and play the whole thing on redirect.

632

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: Or ask them if they’ll play it all.

If they say no, then you play it.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Now, this is a video in front of the Ft. Harrison on November 30, 1998.

______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“You want to see the other side of the sign, too? Just want to make sure you get all of the information, all of the data.

“Tell David I’m coming with a dick so big, I’m gonna knock his goddamn spine out cuz I’m black. I got a big dick. I’m black. I got a big dick.

“Hey. Hey. Didn’t that guy have curly hair? (Inaudible.)

“No. No. Jesse. Yo momma. I been fucking your momma a long time (inaudible). That’s why you got that curly hair.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)

______________________________________

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you recognize yourself, Mr.~Prince?

A Yes, I do.

Q You recognize Mr. Minton?

633

A Yes, I do.

Q And you thought that was funny? Your statement about Mr. Miscavige?

A Yes, I did.

Q You don’t consider that a threat?

A No, I don’t.

Q You think it is appropriate for an expert, or anybody, for that matter, but particularly an expert on — supposedly on religion to be in front of the Ft. Harrison to be making obscene statements about David Miscavige like that to other — to Scientologists?

A You know, I think there was an indiscretion that happened there, certainly.

Q And you consider it harassment for you and Mr. Prince — and Mr. Minton and others to be holding signs like the one you were holding, “Lisa, blood on her hands,”and the one Mr. Minton was holding about the Third Reich, do you consider that harassment to be walking in front of the mecca of Scientology? Do you consider that to be harassment?

MR. WEINBERG: This is on the same day in front of the Criminal Court Complex.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, do you remember this being the day of the arraignment in the criminal case and do you remember being in front of the complex with Stacy Brooks, Bob Minton, Ken Dandar, Dr. Garko and yourself? Do you remember that photo?

A I remember that photo.

Q And do you recognize that as the criminal complex in Clearwater?

A The one on 49th Street?

Q Yes.

A Yes, I do.

Q And who took that photo?

A You know, I’m not sure.

Q And do you think that is funny? “Scientology, Hubbard Third Reich,” do you think that is funny?

A You know, I think those people in that picture are exercising their constitutional rights.

Q Do you think it is appropriate for the trial team of Mr. Dandar, Dr. Garko and you and Ms. Brooks, along with

635

Mr. Minton, to be standing in front of a public building holding signs like that?

MR. DANDAR: Objection.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you think that is appropriate?

MR. DANDAR: Objection. Mr. Minton is not part of any trial team.

THE COURT: He said “and Mr. Minton.” So I’m assuming he was excluding him.

MR. WEINBERG: That is what I did.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you consider that to be appropriate behavior?

A I consider that unless I’m committing a crime, I’m exercising my constitutional rights as an American citizen.

Q Do you believe that that constitutes harassment of the Church of Scientology?

A No, I don’t. I think if I was doing anything illegal, Scientology would have had me arrested on the spot.

Q Okay.

THE COURT: Harassment is not illegal. I guess what he’s trying to ask you is, in addition to exercising your First Amendment rights, did you consider that that might be considered harassment?

THE WITNESS: You know, and I — my answer again is no. My answer is I’m exercising my

636

constitutional rights as an American citizen.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You wouldn’t consider that picket —

MR. WEINBERG: Can you put that photo back up?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Somebody asked you — I think Mr. Dandar asked you whether or not he was ever on a picket.

THE COURT: Now, Counselor, in all fairness, that is a picture, that is not a picket. What we saw before —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand. I was asking to ask him. This is a picture.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q My question is what was going on with these signs in front of the Clearwater courthouse? What were you-all doing with these signs?

A I think we had been picketing earlier.

THE COURT: Was Mr. Dandar with you when you were picketing?

THE WITNESS: Absolutely not. Neither was Mr. Garko.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And whose idea was it to pose for this picture?

A I don’t know. I don’t recall. I don’t remember.

Q I mean, no one forced you-all to do this.

637

Correct?

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: Go to the next one, please.
______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“You work for a criminal organization. And they’re going to be found out. You take that and put it on the camera and run it to Miscavige, your leader, your guru. He’s going down.”

(End of playing of video tape.)

______________________________________

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, that was right outside the Clearwater Bank building where all the people go in to eat. Correct?

A Yes. It was.

Q And right down the street, as you look down the street, is where the LMT offices were?

A That is correct.

Q All right. And do you consider that to be a threat to Mr. Miscavige where you say he’s going down?

A No, I do not. And I think I have to — you know, because this is just a little snippet you are showing here, I think I should give the situation that was occurring.

On that very street that you saw me in front of where the Lisa McPherson Trust is around the corner, on that

638

particular day I had gone to a shop on Cleveland to buy a pack of cigarettes and go back to the office.

From the moment I walked out of my office, all of the way up to the door of the shop I went to and all of the way back, a Scientology OSA person had a camera on me like this (indicating).

I was annoyed. If that is a crime, find me guilty.

Q Now, was that your purpose when you say, “You’re going down,” was your purpose to get rid of Mr. Miscavige from being the chairman of the board or the ecclesiastical leader of Scientology?

A My purpose was to express my annoyance.

Q And “guru,” were you just being funny?

A Again, my purpose was to express my annoyance.

Q Now, was that your agenda? Strike that.

Was it Mr. Minton’s agenda — was part of his agenda to get rid of David Miscavige?

A You had Mr. Minton up here —

Q I’m just asking you.

A — Mr. Weinberg, forever, you know.

Q I’m asking you.

A He never said that to me. He never said that to me.

THE COURT: There is an answer in the

639

courtroom. It is called “I don’t know.” If it is —

A He never — no, he never said that to me.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you described you, Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton as the A team, right?

A Correct.

Q And the A team got formed in the summer of 1998?

A I would say — Mmm — thereabouts.

Q Right. And the A team continued to be —

A Maybe — wait a minute. I misspoke about that because that A team business didn’t come up until after — after we’d worked together for a while and had done things.

And that concept came out — in the summer of ’98 is when I first met them, so I think it would be a misrepresentation to say that the A team was in the summer of ’98, at least to my best recollection as I sit here today.

Q So when was it?

A And I can’t be sure. It was sometime later.

Q When you said it became the A team after you had done things, what kind of things? Are you talking about like — do you mean like pickets and sending postings and things like that? Are those the things that you were doing?

A I think more like helping people directly.

Q Helping people?

640

A Yes.

Q How was Mr. Minton helping people, by standing and holding signs like that?

A Well, you know, I guess there is a myriad of answers for that. But what I meant to say, helping people, I meant helping people that had run into problems with Scientology and were not able to resolve them so that they can get on with their lives.

Q Now, where did the A team concept come from?

A You know, I think there used to be a television program.

Q Are you talking about the one with Mr. T?

A If you let me finish. You know, the reason why I can’t answer that question, because when those television series were going on, I was in the Sea Org and we weren’t allowed to watch TV. So I have a big missing section in my life with serial programs and things like that.

So again I’ll say there was some program that had the A team on it. And I think Mr. Minton brought it up and — but —

Q And —

A — but I have never seen a program called the A team or anything like that.

Q When you said the A team yesterday, what did you mean, A team? What was it that the A team was doing?

641

A The A team was myself, Bob and Stacy. And the A team were helping people that needed help to resolve issues with Scientology.

You know, just to — to show how far at the other end of the spectrums were, Mr. Minton actually thought he was helping Scientology by helping these people resolve issues with Scientology.

Q Do you remember speaking to the media about bringing Mr. Miscavige down?

A No. I do not.

MR. WEINBERG: Play that next one, please.
______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“It takes standing up and recognizing it for what it is, a dead, arcane idea. We’re dealing with people who are ignorant and we’re going to bring them down.”

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you remember that?

A I object to that very — I can’t object, but that was an obvious edit where you sliced two things together.

And I think you are mis-characterizing a speech that I gave for a vigil for Lisa McPherson where the press was there. I was not speaking for the press. I was speaking to former Scientologists.

642

Q Were you talking about bringing down Scientology?

Is that what you were talking about?

MR. DANDAR: We object and ask the whole thing be played.

THE COURT: I think that is fair.

MR. WEINBERG: It was a newscast, we didn’t — we can play the whole newscast. It takes a minute.

THE COURT: I don’t want the whole newscast.

Just whatever Mr. Prince said.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, that is what Mr. Prince said. That is all he said is what we just played.

THE COURT: Well, it did look like there was a definite splice.

MR. WEINBERG: There was. One of these newscasts where the reporter said something and Stacy Brooks said something and he said the first thing on there, Mr. Prince, then somebody else said something, then he said the last thing.

We took the two things Mr. Prince said and put it together. But we can play the whole section.

THE COURT: It makes it look like he said all that together, and it may not have been.

I think if what it is you are trying to do is every time he said we’re going to bring him down, what is it you mean when you say that?

643

THE WITNESS: Expose — expose what is actually going on.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: You know, expose the fact that private investigators are being used to terrorize citizens because they disagree with Scientology.

Expose the fact that someone gave $100,000, and it is Scientology’s policy, if you don’t use a service that you paid for, they will refund it to you.

THE COURT: Normally, when you want to say we’re going to expose somebody, you don’t say expose somebody, you say bring them down, that kind of means put them out of business. That is what I mean by that. What did you mean by it?

THE WITNESS: I mean ending the criminal activity. Ending the assault of citizens who have no way to protect themselves once they get on the bad side of Scientology.

THE COURT: When you say “We are going to bring you down,” this is your testimony, you did not mean put the Church of Scientology out of business, do away with the Church?

THE WITNESS: Right, in the illegal activities. I never had a — as I said, corrupt activities wasn’t even anything in my mind during the majority

644

of my stay in Scientology. These are things that I learned about after I got to Gilman, Hot Springs, and started working directly for Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Miscavige. I was an ignorant, blind person to it prior to that time.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q When you said in that newscast that I just played, quote, “It takes standing up and recognizing it for what it is, a dead, arcane idea,” that was how you — that — you were expressing your opinion about Scientology, that is what
you meant by that, isn’t it?

A No. You have taken this out of context because I don’t know what “It is.” You showed me a little snippet. I don’t know what you’re talking about.

THE COURT: I don’t, either.

MR. WEINBERG: I have the transcript. We’ll play the whole tape because we are obviously not going to get done today.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q But — it was a response to a question, “Today they spoke out against the Church of Scientology,” and then they play what you said about it. But we’ll play the whole thing. It takes about a minute. All right.

You remember going on several trips to Europe with Mr. Minton, correct?

645

A I think I went on a couple of trips with Mr. Minton.

Q All right. He paid for the trips?

A Correct.

Q Who else went with you?

A You know, as a matter of fact, I only traveled to Europe with Mr. Minton one time.

Q And the purpose of that trip was?

A To visit with his business partner, Jeff Schmidt, to have a face-to-face with him to find out specifically what Scientology-hired private investigator David Lee was doing to try to get him to a — do a similar thing as Bob and Stacy, basically turn against Bob and provide criminal information so Scientology could use it to attack Bob Minton.

Q Now, do you remember being in Germany with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks in or about June of 2000?

A I think I was in Leipzig, Germany.

Q And Mr. Minton paid for that trip?

A I think that trip was paid by the Lisa McPherson Trust.

Q So in June of 2000 you were on the payroll of the Lisa McPherson Trust at that point?

A Correct.

Q You had just gone on the payroll?

646

A You know, I can’t remember.

Q And do you remember — you remember being in the DB lounge?

THE COURT: What is that?

A Yes.

THE COURT: What is a DB lounge?

MR. WEINBERG: It is a bar of some sort.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Correct?

A We were at a train station in Leipzig, and there was a bar called the DB Bar, which we thought was amusing because DB means something very specific in Scientology, it means degraded being.

Q And you were there with Ms. Caberta, we heard about, the German government official that works against Scientology, right?

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll play this clip here. This is something turned over to us by the Lisa McPherson Trust.
______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Okay, so — so, Stacy, you start. DM, this drink’s for you.

“DM, this is a special toast to you coming

647

straight from the DB Lounge in Leipzig, Germany.

“I’m not going to call this guy DM anymore. Remember what my new name for David Miscavige is, the former ecclesiastical leader of the Church of Scientology.

“I know this is going on camera.

“I know, but what did I say — (inaudible).

“Yes — yes, this is — this is a toast to David Miscavige, also known as Pope David I, from the DB lounge in Leipzig, Germany. Up, up, up and away.

“Now, Ursula.

“Hi, Mr. Miscavige. We did a great work here in Germany. And we will finish Scientology soon.

“This is to you, Miscavige. We are so thankful that you give us reason to live. Salute.

“Pope David I. Cheers.

“Cheers.

“Just some DBs hanging out here.

“David I.

(Inaudible.)

“This is to David Miscavige in the DB Lounge in Leipzig, Germany at the train station.

“Pope David I.

“Cheers, Miscavige.

648

“Rear Admiral.

(Inaudible.)

“Listen, listen, just —

“No, just stop here now. Now listen.

“We all know in Grady’s deposition, when Grady was deposing David Miscavige, that he went ballistic over the thought of Graham —

“Now —

“– of Graham Berry spending time –”

(End of playing of the video tape.)
______________________________________

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Does that bring back memories, Mr. Prince?

A Yes.

Q And you think that is funny?

A Well, what I think you have is a home video of our trip in Europe that was never made public — Mmm — to anyone. And we were just having fun. Yes, I do think it was funny. We were just having fun at the train station.

Q Does that man, Mr. Minton, look like the most harassed person on the face of the earth?

A He does, to me.

Q And when Ms. Caberta, the German official who has — who flew over here and who is working against Scientology, when she said, “We’re going to finish

649

Scientology,” she was talking about getting rid of it, wasn’t she?

A No. I think she was specifically talking about Scientology isn’t viewed as a religion in Germany.

Scientology is viewed as a political group. The reason Scientology is viewed as a political group —

THE COURT: I don’t need to know that.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: I don’t need to know, care, what is going on in Germany.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q When you talk about the reason for living, when you-all were talking about, you know, David Miscavige gives us a reason to — a reason for living — reason to live for, talking about so that you can malign him, is that what
you-all are talking about?

A No. Not at all.

Q And do you remember — it was cut off at the end.

Do you remember that — that at that point, Mr. — Mr. Minton said something very obscene about Mr. Miscavige?

A I do not remember that. But, again, I’ll state that this was a video that we made on our trip that was a private video, never made public, never put on the Internet, and it is being exploited here today.

650

Q Well, it sort of gives you a different impression about what you-all were about, doesn’t it?

A Who is you-all?

Q Excuse me?

A Who are you talking about, you-all? What you-all were about. What are you talking about?

Q You, Ms. Brooks, Mr. Minton?

A The —

Q The A team?

A I didn’t get that impression.

Q Now, who took that video, this home video that ended up in the LMT on this trip that was financed by the LMT?

A I think Mr. Bunker.

Q So he was there, too, obviously? Was anybody else on this trip? You have the A team, you have Mr. Bunker. Is there anybody else on it?

A Not that I specifically recall.

Q And you-all thought the DB was kind of funny because that is a Scientology term?

A Correct.

Q Now, after looking at your obscenities in front of the Ft. Harrison about Mr. Miscavige, watching this toast, you still think that he would be your friend? Wasn’t that your testimony this morning?

651

A You know, I’m talking to a camera there. The answer to your question is yes, I think that if he and I sat down and actually had a discussion, we would certainly find friendship, would be able to communicate.

I mean, isn’t Scientology all about helping people learn —

THE COURT: That didn’t really answer the question. You have that opinion and that is fine. Then that is the answer to the question.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You talk about counseling. The principal purpose of the LMT, when it moved into Clearwater, was for the A team and the people that were working for the A team to picket and harass Scientology, wasn’t it?

A That is incorrect beyond belief.

Q Okay. Now —

A I would like to explain that, if I could. I would like to explain why the LMT came here, since you brought it up, and if you would allow me to just fully answer the question.

Q So you were involved in the —

THE COURT: I’m going to let him answer the question. What was the purpose of the LMT that — what do you believe the purpose of the LMT was?

THE WITNESS: The purpose of the LMT —

THE COURT: Fifty words or less.

652

THE WITNESS: Okay, fifty words or less, and I won’t talk too fast for the court reporter.

THE COURT: That is 25.

THE WITNESS: When Lisa McPherson left that hotel, she had no place to go. She had a minor accident, stripped off her clothes, told people that she needed help. She ended up back in the Ft. Harrison. Seventeen days later, she was dead.

The reason that Lisa McPherson came to Clearwater and the reason it was there, in case there was another instance where someone needed a safe place to go where they could come and get help.

That is why we were there. And that is the only reason we were there.

And those were the dying wishes of Fannie McPherson, Lisa McPherson’s mother, when she was on her deathbed.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q So all of this picketing which happened on a regular basis, correct —

A Incorrect.

Q Well, can you, like, give us an estimate of the number of times you participated in a picket against the Church of Scientology?

A Yes, I can. Let me think. Because I certainly

653

remember the first one well enough. I think I have probably been involved in maybe six or seven pickets.

Q So in the —

THE COURT: Over what periods of time, Mr. Prince?

THE WITNESS: From 1998 to the present.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q So in a four-year picket —

THE COURT: Four-year period. Not picket.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Right, I have picket on the brain. In the four-year period, you say you only picketed six times?

A I roughly estimated six or seven times that I picketed, yes.

Q And do you have a sense of how many times Ms. Brooks and Mr. Minton picketed in that four-year period?

A I do not.

Q A lot more than six?

A I believe so.

THE COURT: He said he didn’t know.

MR. WEINBERG: I believe he just said “I believe so.”

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, in Clearwater there were other people in the

654

LMT that participated in pickets, including Peter Alexander, correct?

A Yes.

Q Patricia Greenway?

A Yes.

Q Frank Oliver?

A I — I can’t say that I have ever seen Frank Oliver carrying a sign, picketing.

Q So you are not aware he picketed?

A Correct.

Q Of course Minton — of course, the A team, right?

A You know, I think Stacy herself maybe picketed maybe five or six times, as well. But then she didn’t do it anymore because it was not anything she agreed with, nor did she feel it was effective in handling the problem that we
were dealing with.

Q Well, let me ask you this. Do you remember that on September 2, 1998 you and Mr. Minton participated in a picket in Boston at the Boston Airport?

A At the Boston Airport? We — I think you have that in complete reverse. Scientologists picketed us at the airport.

Q Do you have signs, “Scientology, The Third Reich”?

A Do I have signs?

Q Did you-all, you and/or Mr. Minton?

655

A Mmm, it’s a possibility. I don’t know.

Q In September of ’98 did you and Mr. Minton picket in front of the Church of Scientology in Boston?

A That is possible.

Q Well, that is when he was actually arrested for assault and battery. Right?

A Correct.

Q In October of 1998 did you picket with Mr. Minton in front of the Church of Scientology in Boston?

A It’s possible.

Q You remember several pickets in Boston in October of ’98 with one of Mr. — one with Mr. Minton and one with Ms. Brooks?

A I don’t remember that specifically, no.

THE COURT: Tell me why we have to spend so much times on these pickets.

MR. WEINBERG: Because, your Honor, it — it — it demonstrates — first of all, it puts the lie to what we’ve heard all of the way through —

THE COURT: But I know that this man has been involved in pickets.

MR. WEINBERG: It is way beyond that, your Honor. I mean, really —

THE COURT: Pardon?

MR. WEINBERG: It is way beyond that. You have

656

before you a harassment time line. And Mr. Dandar has spent literally 28 days suggesting that somehow Mr. Minton was harassed to the point where — where, for reasons that don’t make any sense to me, for that purpose he would come in and incriminate himself.

And the fact is — we’re not playing all of the pickets. But when you see these clips, most of which we got from the Lisa McPherson Trust in these videos that were just turned over, you will see what was really — what was happening here in Clearwater.

THE COURT: I have no doubt that at the LMT Trust they had very little use, if any, for the Church of Scientology. And they picketed them fairly regularly. Quite frankly, if they had fallen on their face, they wouldn’t have cared; that they were out, in essence, to undo what they perceived to be the bad things that they perceived the Church of Scientology did. I don’t have any doubt about that.

I think the record is clear. So I don’t know why we keep going over those things.

There are things that are really critical to this hearing. And I don’t think those are it.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I mean —

657

THE COURT: It might be important to the counterclaim, but not to this hearing.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I mean, if you rely on, for example, what Peter Alexander said, he said he didn’t have anything — or essentially nothing to do with it. You’ll see essentially the opposite.

You have heard that somehow Mr. Minton was harassed. And you’re going to see what was really going on, that the Church was harassed beyond comprehension.

THE COURT: I have no doubt Mr. Minton harassed the Church, as well as the Church harassed Mr. Minton. It is just that simple.

MR. WEINBERG: But nothing is more — well, can I proceed with my cross-examination?

THE COURT: Yes. You may.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You went on the Internet, as well, didn’t you?

A I have been on the Internet. Yes, I have.

Q You made postings on the Internet?

A Yes, I have.

Q In that Leipzig toast you — instead of using the name “David Miscavige,” you actually said “Miss Cabbage,” didn’t you? That was a little joke, wasn’t it?

658

A Did I say that?

Q I’m asking you.

A I thought I said “Miscavige.”

MR. DANDAR: I think we need to hear the video, rather than someone’s transcript.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m going to show you a posting.

THE COURT: In a posting we have heard him called Rear Admiral. We know what that means. And we know they called him Miss Cabbage. And they don’t speak kindly of David Miscavige.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand that. And I’m going to show him, have him identify, his Internet postings.

A I will admit — I have said that before, Miss Cabbage. I just don’t know that — if that is what you are seeing there.

MR. WEINBERG: Could I stand up here with Mr. Prince?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. WEINBERG: I have no other copies.

THE WITNESS: I have no idea what this is.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q This is your postings, isn’t it?

A Excuse me?

Q This is your postings?

659

A I don’t think so. I think it is a fictitious document created —

Q So you didn’t send a posting that said:

“Too bad, Little Miss Cabbage has a corncob up your ass, 724365. I know the feeling. That is why I have him reeling, spending money like a bitch kicked from a pimp. Roll on, ho, big daddy can see you. Jesse.”

A Yes, correct. But that is a fictitious document that was created for the purpose of — to malign me.

Q To malign you?

A Yes.

Q But you have used Miss Cabbage?

A Yes, I’ll admit it. Freely admit it.

MR. DANDAR: Objection. This does not have the normal E-Mail headers on it that you would find if it was an original document, instead of something that someone altered.

A I don’t even know who Robert is.

THE COURT: I don’t know. If he can’t authenticate that, I don’t know whether — I don’t know whether it is in or not. At the top it says

“Spread the word, bitch.”

Then it goes on to some other comments. And that is not the way an E-Mail normally —

MR. WEINBERG: It is not an E-Mail. It’s a

660

posting.

THE COURT: Well, the same thing. I don’t know. It would seem like this Jesse Prince, Jesse77@GTE.net would be Mr. Prince’s — that would be — is that what you go by?

THE WITNESS: I had that in 1998, I think, when I had a particular type of computer, I used to have that address. But as I sit here today, I don’t know what name — the name Robert.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, when you use the word “Miss Cabbage,” what do you mean?

MR. DANDAR: Objection. That is not his E-Mail.

THE COURT: No, he admitted that he has called David Miscavige Miss Cabbage.

A It’s an obvious derogatory use of Miscavige.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And derogatory in — I mean, in what context did you use it when you used it?

A I don’t remember. I just know that — you know —

I have said that before. I admit to it.

Q Now, let me show you — see if you recognize this posting. Or is this another fictitious one?

MR. WEINBERG: What will this be?

661

THE CLERK: 219.

MR. DANDAR: What exhibit number is that?

MR. WEINBERG: 219.

THE COURT: The one before that was 2-what?

MR. WEINBERG: 218.

THE COURT: That did not come in because —

MR. WEINBERG: He said he couldn’t authenticate it.

THE COURT: So that is not in evidence. That is Number 218. This one you just gave us is 219?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Did you make that posting?

A Yes, I did.

Q And do you consider that to be a — a posting that would indicate a derogatory view toward Mr. Miscavige and the religion of Scientology?

A Mmm, I think that this posting is a result of the Scientology operations being run on me.

While I’m trying to testify in a court in front of a judge in Denver, Scientology hired a prostitute, had a deep undercover agent, Laura Terepin, working on me, helping me with the deposition, saying there are people other than

662

who they are. You know, this is an annoyance response to what had been happening to me. You see I clearly speak about private investigators following me.

In Denver, very strange things happened.

Q What do you mean, they hired a prostitute?

A A prostitute.

You know, this guy from Denver — there was a private investigative agency in Denver that was watching me. He brought a woman who said it was his sister, who was a whore. She got a room directly across the street from my — not across the street, across the hall from my room in the hotel that I was staying in.

And when I came out — and she was a beautiful woman, you know. “Oh, can you help me get my key,” on and on and start this conversation.

This guy says, “This is my sister. We’re just in town.”

Suitable guise. Mr. Sharp will explain it to you. And they started this whole routine of, “Come on. Party with us tonight. We’ve got drugs, we have this. We’ve got whatever.”

I’m supposed to testify. I literally had to get rid of them.

The other person, Laura Terepin was — her real name wasn’t Laura Terepin.

Jolie Steckart, specifically paid by Scientology

663

to infiltrate Mr. Dan Leipold’s office as I sat there writing my declaration for his case.

It was these kind of things that annoyed me, and I would write these things.

Q So when this hooker came to your room, you told her to leave?

A Yes.

Q Or did you —

A We were at the bar. And then she wanted to come to the room. I’m like, “No, I have to testify.”

Q But I think you testified previously that she actually — you let her come to your room and you did something with her. Right?

A No. I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I — I think that you are fabricating that.

Q Now, when you say in the first sentence: “It seems some people (Miscavige) just don’t have the guts to quit when it’s over,” what did you mean by that?

A What I meant specifically by that is that I came into the case — the FACTNet case — Scientology had brought an action against FACTNet for copyright — certain copyright violations.

And — Mmm — I — I remember vividly the whole issue of copyrights in Scientology. I have given a — a detailed affidavit about it.

But the fact of the matter is the copyrights — or

664

at least some of them — were completely bogus. And the filings of the copyrights were filed under false premises.

I did an affidavit against that concerning that — concerning that naming specifically the people that were involved. Another officer, staff member, Pat Brice, was involved, because after Mr. Miscavige dismantled the Guardian’s Office, there was always a section in Scientology, according to its own policy, to register trademarks and copyrights all of the time.

Q That is what you meant —

A Excuse me I’m still talking. And they let that lapse a period of time. So you had a large section of materials that they claim copyright protection for which, in fact, they did not have. And I was able to identify what that was.

Q So that is what you meant when you said, “When it’s over, they just don’t have the guts to know when it’s over”?

A Correct. They submit false documents to the Court. I point out to the Court that the documents are false and show them how, is specifically what I mean there.

Q The third paragraph, the last sentence, where you say: “Can’t you just –” talking about Miscavige now, “Can’t you just take it like a man? Soon you’ll be in a place where you’ll be taking it like a man regularly,” that

665

is sort of like the Miss Cabbage thing, you’re talking about him being in jail and sexually assaulted?

A I’m talking about him being incarcerated for being involved in criminal activity.

THE COURT: Was this a posting to David Miscavige, or somebody else?

THE WITNESS: No. It was that newsgroup, alt.religion.scientology.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Let me show you another one. You did hundreds of these things?

A I don’t think so.

Q You just felt compelled, as an expert, to go on this alt.religion.scientology and say obscene things about David Miscavige?

A At the time of these writings, I was not operating — I don’t think I was — I don’t know. I don’t remember. I don’t think I was an expert in this — I think I came in here in December of ’99 when —

THE COURT: I mean, there are people that learn things from this case. Mr. Prince, if you are going to ever testify in another case, you ought to learn not to post things on an Internet, especially not to be involved in vulgar demonstrations. They’ll always come back to haunt you in a court proceeding.

666

Just like I hope Mr. Dandar learned, whether you call it picket or vigil, if you are a lawyer, you ought not to be there.

There are certain things you need to have learned. I hope you learned that.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, that is a true statement. I have learned that from Judge Moody. He taught me quite a bit about how I needed to act in relationship to this.

And you are right, I have had some indiscretions. All right, if we need to talk about that, we will.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I showed you what I marked as Defendant’s Exhibit 220. Do you see that, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, I do.

Q Do you remember writing that open letter to David Miscavige?

A Uh-huh.

THE COURT: That is a yes?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I’m sorry. Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And — and this is when you are definitely involved as an expert, you already worked on Wollersheim, you already reviewed the PC folders for Mr. Dandar.

667

Correct?

A Quite possibly I’ll agree with you there.

Q And so you say in the first paragraph: “How desperate you must feel. If you sit quietly and listen carefully, you will hear it.”

MR. DANDAR: Objection. I need to have the question asked of the witness to identify this document and make sure it is his.

MR. WEINBERG: He just did.

A This is my document. Yes.

MR. DANDAR: It doesn’t have headers on it. That is all.

THE COURT: Well, he has identified it, so —

MR. DANDAR: All right.

A Yes.

THE COURT: You are introducing this?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: It will be received.

MR. WEINBERG: And I —

THE COURT: Honestly, I’ll tell you the same thing, I don’t need you to read it to me. If there is some part you want to point to —

MR. WEINBERG: Really, the first paragraph and last paragraph.

THE COURT: Okay.

668

A Yes, I wrote — I wrote the first paragraph, all of the paragraphs in the middle, all of the way to the end.

And I think if you read this whole thing, you’ll see that I’m upset, I’m very peeved over the fact on Page 2, second paragraph, that —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q I didn’t ask about Page 2. I asked about the first paragraph. That is all I asked you.

A Oh, okay.

Q And the last paragraph. You wrote that, where you quote the Bible?

A Correct.

Q And the reason for quoting this passage from Revelations about “Avenge our blood on those who dwell upon the earth” was what?

A Well, you know, if you know this passage, these are the saints that died for righteousness but evil and corruption carries on. And when the fifth seal is opened, biblically speaking, the saints’ blood will be avenged.

This is specifically what I’m talking about. And how this relates to Miscavige and Scientology is the corruption — the agonizing activity that I had to go through to deal with my children, my father, old girlfriends, Scientology did their noisy investigation on me.

669

I wish I would have had this document when Mr. Dandar was asking me do you remember noisy investigations. They ran around to my entire family. I had to go to Chicago, I had to go to Minneapolis, to Memphis, Tennessee, to deal with friends and associates and family as a result of Scientology doing their, quote/unquote, noisy investigation, spreading lies and false information about me.

THE COURT: Are you done with Number 220? We need to take our break.

MR. WEINBERG: We offer 220. And I do also offer 219, the one before that.

THE COURT: That will be received, too. And we’ll go ahead and take our afternoon break. It is 25 after. A 20-minute break.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 3:25 to 3:50.)
______________________________________

THE COURT: You may continue.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you. At the break I had one more of these things I was going to mark. I’ll go on. That is 221.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, do you recognize Defense Exhibit 221 as a posting which you made on or about August 6 of

670

1998?

A If you’ll give me just one minute —

Q Sure.
A — to review this document, please, I’ll indicate it for you.

Okay, yes. I do remember this document.

MR. WEINBERG: All right. I’ll offer this, your Honor. I have a couple questions to ask on it.

THE COURT: All right. It will be received.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, this is one of the first postings you made after you had joined the ranks of working against Scientology, correct?

A I would hardly characterize it as that. But this is one of the first postings that I made on the Internet concerning Scientology. Yes.

Q All right. Now, in that first paragraph you say, second sentence: “You know, I just can’t refer to Scientology as a church in any way. It would be an insult to all religions.” Do you see that?

A Yes.

Q And that is how you feel today, isn’t it?

A You know, it is not. And I can explain to you why.

Q You don’t need to.

671

A Okay. Then I have answered the question.

Q So you think it’s a church?

A Correct.

Q So you just sent this out of some hatred?

MR. DANDAR: Objection. He didn’t want him to explain it. Now he’s asking him. So let the man explain his answer.

THE COURT: Well, I think that was a different question. And I think that Mr. Prince is capable of answering that question, then I think he can explain it.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You sent this out of some hatred for Scientology?

A Mmm, no, sir.

Q Now, if you go to the fourth paragraph where it says, I quote:

“The bottom line is that the hierarchy of Scientology is composed of people who are very, very, very mentally ill, sick people of the worst sort. Why? Because they are sick and don’t know it. In all honesty, I hope to reach them so they can wake up and start getting well like I have and others have.”

You wrote that, right?

A Correct.

Q Wasn’t that what you have, in essence, been doing for the last four years, trying to get rid of the hierarchy

672

of Scientology, including David Miscavige?

A You know, that is not exactly what I say here, to get rid of those people. I said I hope that I could reach them so that they can wake up and start getting well themselves.

Q Now, you — the truth is, isn’t it, Mr. Prince, that you and Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks, the A team, had a ball with regard to all this picketing you-all participate in over the last four years?

A I’m sorry, I hardly can agree to that, Mr. Weinberg. I wouldn’t call it a ball.

Q You had a lot of fun doing it, wouldn’t you say?

A I wouldn’t say that either, Mr. Weinberg.

Q You remember the first time that you went to New Hampshire and — and — and encountered picketing in New Hampshire?

A Yes, when Scientologists came in and picketed Mr. Minton’s home.

Q Right. And that was on Mr. Minton’s — that was on Ms. Brooks’ harassment time line. Right?

A It very well could have been. Sure.

Q And do you remember that you were there with Mr. Minton and that you-all were laughing and giggling and making fun of the Scientologists, the few that came by in the cars? You called it a drive-by —

673

A The picketers, yes, it was amusing because the Scientologists came by and stood in the road with their signs, and it is quite a narrow road up in New Hampshire, there aren’t sidewalks where Mr. Minton lives. So a state trooper came and asked them not to stand in the road because it was dangerous. It was actually kind of a blind curve by Mr. Minton’s house that makes it dangerous, being there are no sidewalks.

And what was particularly amusing about what the Scientologists resorted to at that point is that they — Mmm — went around and pulled their cars way back, then took their picket signs out the window, because they were too big to stick through the window, and they held them outside of the car and drove back and forth. I thought that was pretty pathetic.

Q And you and Mr. Minton had anti-Scientology signs, correct?

A Mr. Minton had signs.

Q You did, too?

A No. I never owned a picket sign myself.

Q You never held a picket sign?

A I never owned —

Q I didn’t ask you whether you owned it.

A I’m sorry.

Q You had a sign. There were signs there that you

674

and Mr. Minton had, correct? Anti-Scientology signs?

A That may or may not be correct. I don’t specifically recall.

Q All right. Do you remember doing a posting with regard to that incident that appears on the harassment time line?

A I do. But — but, Mr. Weinberg, I have to say this because, you know, you selectively are taking paragraphs out of these things and you are painting a picture here.

But really what this is about is — this last thing you handed me is about trying to help these people. I’m telling the story about something that happened to Marty Rathbun, something that might have had a psychological
impact on him that he would need help resolving.

Q But that wasn’t my question. All my question was, you did another posting about this incident which appears on Mr. Minton’s harassment time line in front of his house in 1998. Correct?

A You know, I need that time line right here. I mean, I’m saying it’s possible. But if you want to pull it out, you want to show me what you’re talking about, I think I can answer the question better.

Thank you.

MR. WEINBERG: Marked as 222.

675

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You can identify this as your posting, can you not, Mr. Prince?

A Yes.

Q And in the second paragraph you say, “Bob and Jesse quickly helped with the pilot and started bullbaiting the protesters.”

When you say bullbaiting, that would suggest that you were, what, holding signs or doing something back?

A No. Bullbaiting is a term that is used in Scientology specifically to designate some of their training routines. The training routines are called TRs; TRs for short.

Part of the training routine is to be able to sit across from a person without flinching and without moving when the person makes gestures or tries to do something shocking; in other words, this is a routine to train you to keep your countenance during an adverse commission, I guess.

Q In here you said, “We had great fun”?

A Correct.

Q Now, do you know why this appeared on the harassment time line if it was so much fun?

A Well, you haven’t shown me that — and I have asked you, too, to show me on the time line. So I can’t answer these questions — you know, you are referring to

676
something that I don’t have in front of me. I can’t see it.

Q I thought from the testimony yesterday that you had reviewed the time line pretty closely?

THE COURT: Well, believe me, he has. It’s a very long thing. I think it’s a fair request. If you want him to specifically note whether it is on the time line or not, show him the time line.

MR. WEINBERG: I will.

THE COURT: My recollection is that document was extremely long.

MR. DANDAR: It is. And, Judge, I object to 222 because there has definitely been editing done. Right after “barbecue” and before the word “soup,” something is taken out.

MR. WEINBERG: No, it is not. You knew exactly what it is.

THE WITNESS: Where is that at?

MR. DANDAR: Where it said, “You invited Minton for barbecue,” after “barbecue” there is a blank, then there is “soup.”

THE COURT: 222, you are talking about?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. Right here.

THE WITNESS: Second paragraph? Oh, yes, you are right. You are right. It has been edited.

Something has been deleted from there.

677

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q What was there? Because we didn’t edit anything.

A Yes, maybe you didn’t, but your client did. And I know specifically why.

What it said, “We were having BT and cluster soup.” BT is part of the secret cosmology of the upper levels of Scientology. So this has been, in fact, edited.

MR. DANDAR: I object to it. It is an altered document.

MR. WEINBERG: Are you testifying, first of all?

MR. DANDAR: I’m objecting to it based on Mr. Prince’s testimony. It’s an altered document by the defendant.

MR. WEINBERG: He identified it before, your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Dandar just indicated that it had been altered. And so if it now — I’ll ask you, Mr. Prince, is that the original document, or has it been altered?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, this has been altered. This is not the original.

THE COURT: If you have one that has not been altered, then it will be admissible.

MR. WEINBERG: First of all, we didn’t alter

678

anything.

THE COURT: I didn’t say you did. But if — I mean, I’m happy to write in the original what was there if Mr. Prince remembers it and everybody agrees.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Do you remember what was there?

A I remember exactly what was there. It says we were having barbecue BTs and cluster soup. “BTs” and “clusters” are words Scientologists aren’t allowed to use outside of Scientology.

Q So it’s a derogatory thing?

A No, there is nothing derogatory about BTs and clusters. This is a reality – something they believe in.

Q Well, I —

A But they are sensitive to it, so they altered the document.

MR. DANDAR: And I would object. If there is any more altered documents, that they not attempt to use them, or tell you in advance.

THE COURT: You just heard counsel say he did not know or believe it had been altered. So be careful, though, when you look at your documents.

That does look like something is missing from there. But I do know on my own E-Mails sometimes they

679

all get askew and don’t seem to line up right. I was on the Florida Supreme Court website looking up stuff on the death penalty cases. And all of a sudden they go and they just stop. So you can’t tell by looking.

MR. DANDAR: But this one —

THE COURT: That one does appear to be where there is something clearly missing. So —

MR. WEINBERG: It obviously was not what I was focusing on, BT and cluster soup. But with the record indicating what Mr. Prince was saying was there, I offer the exhibit.

THE COURT: Take the original back and write it in.

MR. WEINBERG: Sure.

THE COURT: And ask Mr. Prince if that is what he recalls it said and, if so, then we can admit it with that —

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll let him write it because I don’t know — I assume how to spell it but I’m not sure how to spell it.

THE COURT: BT , is that like two initials.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Here. Do it like this.

680

THE COURT: Everybody make notations on your copies. Cluster is C-L-U-S-T-E-R.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. And the original has “BT” and that he wrote in.

THE COURT: Okay. That will be admitted.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you remember that at this —

A Excuse me.

Q I wanted to show you the harassment time line. Let me show you what has been previously marked as the harassment time line, the “Time Line of Scientology Harassment of Robert Minton and Colleagues.”

I show you the entry for September 7, 1998. It says: “Scientologists picketed Mr. Minton’s home in New Hampshire again but it was done in a car with picket signs held out of the car window.”

A Correct.

Q So that was the incident, right?

A Yes.

Q Now, I want to play this. This is that — you remember you-all videoed this?

A I don’t remember videoing the incident, but let’s see what you have got.

Here is your pen, by the way —

681
______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Don’t block her sign now, Jesse. I’ve gotta get a picture of that good sign.

“Okay. Let me put mine up.

“Okay, yeah.

“Hey, Maureen, just out here having a little chat.

So did you see that last — “(Inaudible.) I don’t know. All I can say is when I was in your position, there was a lot of —

“That you’re a staunch Scientologist. And it’s dangerous for you to believe otherwise because you’d be wrong.”

MR. DANDAR: Could we clarify the people in the car are Scientologists?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q They are, aren’t they, Mr. Prince?

A They are. OSA personnel.

682
______________________________________

“Damn dumb asses. I got ’em. See, what they need, what they need is like a — what they need — what they need is a chain — I mean a long line of cars.

“They just don’t seem to be able to get more than two —

“Yeah.

“– for these little New Hampshire things.

“Hey, it’s an hour from Boston, man.

“Ain’t it pathetic. One person holding one sign out the window. And then when they go by this way, the driver can’t do it so the fucking sign’s over there. Oh, my God. How pathetic.

“They must think this is having some kind of terrible psychological impact.

“Yes, it’s just entertaining as all hell.

“Here they come.

“Okay.

(Inaudible.)

“Hey, you fucking idiot.

“They don’t have enough nerve to try to run over me.

“Me, either. I stood there, too. I just stood in the middle of the road and got ’em driving up.

“Look at this. This is a good one.

683

“Here they come again. That’s when they were coming earlier. That’s all I got of them so far, but the two of them are good.

“Yeah.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)
______________________________________

MR. WEINBERG: That is it?

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q So you were having fun, you and Mr. Minton, in this thing on the harassment time line?

A Mmm, you know, Mr. Weinberg, I think even I said on that tape it was just an annoyance that they do it; though it was pathetic and though it was funny, it’s annoying. Now, you made a huge point about how harassed Scientology feels about being picketed. But when these people come by and picket, we’re supposed to be having fun. You can’t have it both ways.

Q Well, what do you call what they were doing, by the way? Do you call that harassment? Or do you call that the First Amendment?

A They were exercising their First Amendment rights.

But what happened that was harassing is that Bob and I didn’t have a clue they were even out there until they parked their cars, ran up to the door, knocked on the door

684

screaming, “Minton, Minton, Minton,” then ran back to their cars. This is the only way they let us know they were there.

We are upstairs fooling around on the computers. These guys are banging on the doors. We wonder, what the heck. We run down. And we got the drive-by pickets going on.

Q They didn’t shout obscenities?

A Absolutely. “Where is your whore, Minton?” This kind of thing. Absolutely.

Q You didn’t hear that on the tape, though, did you?

A Well, of course not. Because what I’m speaking about is when they knocked on the door, and we were way in the back of the house. They wanted to make themselves known. Now, what they’re doing, going up and down there,
okay.

Q Now, after this, after September of 1998, was this your first encounter with picketing, having signs and stuff like that?

A It could have been.

Q Now, after this, for the next — for the next four years, or almost four years, Mr. Minton and you and Ms. Brooks and other people affiliated with the Lisa McPherson Trust did all kinds of pickets in front of Scientology buildings, shouting obscenities, making threats,

685

interfering with — with Scientologists going into their buildings and the like, didn’t you?

A That is categorically false.

MR. WEINBERG: Could you play the first tape, please. This is May 27 — this is again — this is the Lisa McPherson Trust.

______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Stick this in the right place. Scientology is a scam. A white meter. Fucking criminal. David Miscavige is a white Jew. He will be a convicted criminal.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, do you consider that harassment of the Church of Scientology? That was out in front of the church in Boston, wasn’t it?

A Yes. Was I there?

Q I’m asking you, do you consider that harassment?

MR. DANDAR: Objection. He’s not there. He should not be asked to comment about —

THE COURT: I think he can comment on that.

Overruled.

A You know, what I see there, that little snippet that you showed me, I would say yes, that is a bit annoying

686

and harassing.

But I also suspect, because when Bob Minton would go out and picket, he would just be quiet, he wouldn’t say a word, he would just walk up and down the street.

But then the OSA people would come out, Maureen Garde, the person I was walking with in the previous video, they would come out and start talking to Mr. Minton about things from his therapy sessions.

This is where the therapy information started, in picketing the Boston org. And they would kind of whip him into a frenzy. And the whole idea was to bait Mr. Minton to make him look like an ass.

Well, you know, I agree everyone ended up looking like an ass on some of those things, but, you know, let’s put this in perspective, because these little snips aren’t going to work. These people were specifically targeting Mr. Minton to do psychological terrorism on him.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, is it a bit annoying that Mr. Minton said that L. Ron Hubbard and David Miscavige were wife beaters?

That is a bit annoying?

A And I’m sure he’s annoyed because Mrs. Maureen Garde started speaking to things about — from his confidential counseling sessions with Scientology.

How Scientology got that information, God only knows, because no one will ever speak on it, will they? But that is what was

687

happening there.

Q And Mr. Minton, according to your testimony, was quiet on his pickets?

A He would just be as quiet as hell. Then if he got antagonized, he would start in. And I think that was known.

And, you know, you talk about me hating Scientologists. When you saw me in that first —

THE COURT: We’re well past the answer to that question.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Play the next one, please.
______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Reform Scientology now. Don’t let David Miscavige destroy Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard would not approve of what David Miscavige has done.

“It’s safe to look. It’s safe to talk. Don’t let David Miscavige destroy the Church of Scientology. Make it something you can be proud of. Dump David Miscavige. Dump David Miscavige. It’s safe to talk. It’s safe to look. Don’t let David Miscavige destroy Scientology. L. Ron Hubbard would never approve of what Miscavige is doing. (Inaudible.)

“Reform Scientology now.

688

“Don’t let the introspection rundown kill you. You don’t have to die in introspection rundown. You don’t have to let Miscavige scare you to death.

“Don’t be afraid.

“Don’t let Miscavige scare you out.

“It’s okay to confront the fact that Miscavige cannot handle some pressure.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)
______________________________________

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You recognize that as people including Mr. Minton from the Lisa McPherson Trust, right where the Scientologists in Clearwater go to eat, right? That is where that was, wasn’t it?

A Yes, it was.

Q And that sure sounded like a direct attack on David Miscavige, didn’t it?

A Mmm, it sounded like there was definitely some problems with Miscavige being voiced there.

Q You saw Miss Greenway there, didn’t you?

A Yes.

Q You saw David Cecere from the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A Yes. I didn’t see me, though.

Q You were the vice-president of PR at the Lisa

689

McPherson Trust, weren’t you?

A That is such a fabrication, it is laughable. I have never been — had anything to do with public relations, period. Can’t you tell?

Q So what was your position at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A I was there specifically to help people who had been in — somehow had some gripe with Scientology that they wanted to make right.

And again I’ll say it. The work that we were doing at the Lisa McPherson Trust helped Scientology because you had a lot of garbage in the street, people that were hurt, people giving you a bad name.

When we finished with those people, they signed releases saying they wouldn’t speak disparagingly about you again, they got their money and they went on their way. Okay, that part needs to be told.

Q My only question was what was your title or position in the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A Vice-president.

Q Vice-president of what?

A The Lisa McPherson Trust.

Q And what was your responsibility there?

A I’ll say it again.

THE COURT: He just already said that.

690

MR. WEINBERG: That is just what he said?

THE COURT: Yes.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, were you referred to as the big boss at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A No.

MR. WEINBERG: Play the next one, please.

_____________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Make Scientology something to be proud of. Reform it now before David Miscavige ruins it. Find the new leaders within your organization whom you can be proud of.

“Stacy, why don’t you try to round some of them up?

“The Lisa McPherson Trust was established at 33 North Ft. Harrison Avenue in order to let the world know about the abusive practices which David Miscavige has caused Scientology to live by.

“The Lisa McPherson Trust will always be here to remind you that you have a responsibility to be good human beings. David Miscavige is ruining your organization.

“Telecommunications is one of the powerful things you have learned in Scientology. Use it.

691

Try to use it to make the world a better place and start with dumping David Miscavige.

“If you ever want any help from Scientology, you can run to 33 North Ft. Harrison Avenue to the Lisa McPherson Trust.

“If you remember, Lisa McPherson is the woman who was held by Scientology for 17 days.

“The whole episode in the Church of Scientology’s Ft. Harrison Hotel was totally out-tech. Even the state prosecutor said it was totally out-tech. The whole thing was run by David Miscavige. David Miscavige is responsible for that woman’s death.

“Remember, David Miscavige is the one who performed the out-tech on Lisa McPherson.

“Remember, David Miscavige was responsible for the out-tech, out-tech handling of Lisa McPherson. She died after 17 days in captivity here.

“It was totally out-tech and you know it. You can look and smile.

“David Miscavige pulled the plug on Lisa. He pulled the plug on Hubbard’s tech. It’s time to face reality. Reform Scientology or it will be destroyed by David Miscavige.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)

692
______________________________________

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, what was the reason that the Lisa McPherson Trust documented all these pickets by taking videos like this?

A Mmm, I think the purpose of the Lisa McPherson Trust always having the video when in close proximity to Scientology is the same reason that — for the same reason that happened to Mr. Minton when David Howe (phonetic) and another staff member — I think that was a staff member that attacked him. I personally took him to the hospital. He just raced him, no one is looking, boom.

So it became routine to take a video camera, in case something did happen that was truly criminal, that it could be documented. That was the purpose.

Q But it was for evidentiary purposes?

A Correct.

Q It wasn’t for posterity?

A Correct.

Q I mean, wasn’t this what the Lisa McPherson Trust was about — let me finish my question — to try to get rid of David Miscavige and to terrorize, using your word now, the Church of Scientology?

A I — I think Mr. Minton was very clear on what the Lisa McPherson Trust was for. And I’m glad you showed that

693

video, because he made it clear he wasn’t out to destroy Scientology, make Scientology go away, as you have, you know, suggested earlier. He wanted it to reform. He wanted the criminal activities to stop.

Why does he pick David Miscavige? I think we need to talk about it. Because you know why? He’s the man that has the private investigators do what they do. He’s the one that — that instigates these vicious attacks against individuals who have any disparaging thing to say about Scientology.

Why does Mr. Minton mention him? Because he knows he’s the person that can change it. Just like that letter that was turned into evidence concerning Bernie McCabe.

He’s the person that can do it. If anyone can do it, Mr. Miscavige can do it.

Q You suggested, stated, in your affidavit, that a decision was made, an intentional premeditated decision, to let her die?

A Correct.

Q This is the same man that you shouted obscenities about, it’s the same man we are watching videos of Mr. Minton and others stand up, asking to be deposed or thrown out of position, right?

A It’s the same man I audited. It’s the same man I have been friends with many years. It’s the same man I have done training with. It’s the same man I helped myself establish and build Scientology for many years. So add that into the equation, too.

Q You think he would call you his friend?

A I think if David and I sat down and talked, he would —

THE COURT: I have heard this question and I have heard this answer at least twice.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, when Mr. Minton said the words “Out-tech” that is something that means something to a Scientologist, correct?

A Correct.

695

Q I mean, Mr. Minton, prior to getting involved with you —

THE COURT: Counselor, it is getting pretty bad to me because I understood it.

MR. WEINBERG: But — all right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q A Scientologist, or a judge that sat in a hearing for 28 days.

THE COURT: There you go.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q That is not something Mr. Minton or any of us, having not been exposed to Scientology before, would understand, correct?

A Yes.

Q And to be out — out to accuse the ecclesiastical leader of being out-tech is about as — about as serious and severe an accusation as you could possibly make against David Miscavige, isn’t it?

A Mmm, Mr. Weinberg, my answer is if the shoe fits, wear it.

Q Just answer that question.

A I did. If the shoe fits, wear it.

THE COURT: No, he wants to know if that is a serious accusation to make to other Scientologists about their ecclesiastical head. Is that a bad

696

thing to the head of Scientology to be out-tech.

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.

THE COURT: To another Scientologist, those folks seeing that demonstration, if they believed that, would not think very highly of their leader?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q And would you not — from looking at that video or the other videos that you have seen so far, it doesn’t look like any of the Scientologists are having a lot of fun at your demonstrations, correct?

A You know, you have only shown me specifically Mr. Minton. You haven’t shown me what the Scientologists are doing or not doing, Mr. Weinberg.

Q Well, in that video we just showed, it was —

A It was going back and forth.

THE COURT: You know what, the deal is we are showing this for —

MR. WEINBERG: That is correct.

Could you play the next one, please.
______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Communicate to David Miscavige that he’s fired.

“Remember Lisa McPherson.

697

“When you’re eating, remember Lisa at her last meal in December of ’95, held captive by the Church of Scientology leader, David Miscavige.

(Inaudible.)

“What is not safe for you is to stand there and do nothing. Tell David Miscavige he’s wrong. Tell him that L. Ron Hubbard would never approve of what he is doing to destroy your church.

“PK, PK, don’t run away.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)
______________________________________

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Does it look, in that video — I mean, and others that we’ve seen — that Mr. Minton is terrorized, harassed or anything like that?

A Mmm, it looks like Mr. Minton was picketing, to me.

Q Now —
______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Okay, are we going to do the locks?

“But the — are we going to do the alarms or –” (Inaudible.)

(End of playing of the video tape.)
______________________________________

698

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You were just having a big time, you and Ms. Greenway?

A You know, that is an edited video you have there. It is — there is obvious editing there, so I would be hard-pressed to draw that conclusion.

Q When it started, it started like all of the pickets started inside the offices of the LMT, correct?

A That is a mischaracterization of how pickets started because every picket did not start in the Lisa McPherson Trust. Other people picketed the Ft. Harrison that weren’t associated with the Lisa McPherson Trust or employees of the LMT — Lisa McPherson Trust.

Q That clip from the LMT film library, that one started in the LMT building, didn’t it?

A I don’t know if it started or finished there because you have shown me one tiny segment. So, you know, if I could have some perspective and see the whole thing, I would be able to comment more accurately.

Q Now, the LMT — literally at times these pickets were intended to literally shut down Clearwater around where you-all were picketing, right?

“Last year, we were all over the place in a clump. We shut down here, we shut down here, we shut down there. We had Flag shut down for the whole day, anyway. This year we spread out in strategic spots and shut down the whole city.

“Frank Oliver came and caused the last breach. So far about two hours now they can’t hardly move anybody any way. They can pick up people from Flag but they can’t bring them in because they have to bring them in there, and they can’t do it.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)
_______________________________________
BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q That is somebody from the LMT?

A Absolutely not.

Q Who is that?

A Greg Hagglund. He lives in Canada.

Q And he was down here for the picket in December?

A Looking at that date of that, he was down for the picket and vigil. People come from all over the United States and even Europe for that. They were doing that long before the Lisa McPherson Trust ever existed or it was here in Clearwater. So, you know, it would be a real bad stretch to think that, you know, he’s working at the trust because

700

he’s picketing.

Q Well, is there a particular reason why the trust had that tape in its film library?

A Maybe someone videotaped it and gave it to the trust, Mr. Weinberg.

Q Well, who was the videotaper for the trust?

A Mark Bunker.
______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Remember Lisa McPherson. Okay, let’s go. (Inaudible.)

“– is one of our old friends.

“Yes. Some other friends from Germany, too.

“That is a good one, too.

“Where else would you like –”

(Inaudible.)

(End of playing of the video tape.)
______________________________________

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Those are all people from the Lisa McPherson Trust, weren’t they?

A False.

Q Oh, Miss Caberta was from Germany, your guest over here?

A Ms. Caberta was here on vacation. Mrs. Caberta.

701

And if you will recall, you yourself earlier said she’s employed by the German government. So, you know, she’s not LMT. She’s just like you said, employed by the German government.

Q This was an LMT-sponsored picket in front of the Ft. Harrison Hotel?

A LMT has never, to my knowledge, sponsored a picket.

Q Is there a particular reason why Mr. Merrett was at that picket?

A I believe Mr. Merrett was at the picket to make sure that nothing happened, there were no altercations, no scuffles, no — you know, you’ll notice this, people, for the most part, are just silently walking up and down the street.

They are not screaming at Scientology itself or yelling at Scientologists; they are exercising their constitutional right to protest.

Q Do you think it might be somewhat harassing to the — on the doorstep of the mecca of Scientologists with signs saying “Blood of Lisa McPherson on your hands” and things like that?

A You know, I can see where someone could draw that inference or conclusion. But the inference and conclusion I draw is people were exercising their constitutional right.

If it was even a civil crime, they would have been sued out

702

of existence.

Q Do you remember that the Lisa McPherson Trust — people documented by Lisa McPherson Trust video picketed in front of the Ft. Harrison Hotel when a Hindu wedding was going on? A Hindu wedding?

A No, I was not there. I know nothing about it.

Q As your position as the VP of the Lisa McPherson Trust, you don’t remember that one?

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: Why don’t we show that.

THE WITNESS: Was I present here?
______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Well, Jesus, that is one thing Scientology didn’t believe in or any other religion, isn’t that right, guys? Isn’t that right? Isn’t that right? That is all — let’s let all of the Nazis come out.

“People are trying to have a wedding, sir.

“What is that?

“Hey, this is fine.

“They’re just trying to have a wedding. They are not —

“Listen, it’s not my fault they got married here.

“Come on now.

“This is a public sidewalk, buddy, so don’t start

703

pushing.

“This is not — (inaudible).

“This is a public sidewalk. Let’s get out of the way. It is still a public sidewalk. Okay?

“When you get out of Scientology, your luck will — (Inaudible.)

“Let’s go. Let’s go.

“Let’s go.

“Come on.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)
______________________________________

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Why did the LMT put that in its film library?

A I think that every — and I’m not sure if this is not Mr. Mark Bunker’s film library that you are referring to — but, you know, we’re — we’re looking at here your two star witnesses. You are showing me videos of your witnesses that you have used in this hearing to testify for you. What are we doing here?

Q I think you said that this is the most harassed person you have ever seen. Does it look like Mr. Minton is the most harassed person you have ever seen when he’s standing there with a sign with skulls on it in front of the Ft. Harrison —

704

THE COURT: Don’t —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.

THE COURT: — raise your voice up to this witness and start approaching him.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.

THE COURT: I won’t have it. And I’m not going to remind you again.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q With a sign with skulls on it, interrupting a Hindu wedding?

A Mr. Weinberg, I agree with you what happened there — what happened was extremely inappropriate. And I don’t agree with it. And you didn’t see me there.

Q I’ll show you one you are at, Mr. Prince.

By the way, before you play that, that tape was done — the one we just played was done in — in September of 2000.

You were full-time at the Lisa McPherson Trust, correct?

A That is possible, yes.

Q Not possible. That is correct?

A I said it’s possible.

Q Why do you say it’s possible? I mean —

A Because I’m not sure when I made that transition from — I’ll explain it to you, I’m not trying to be coy

705

here, but there came a point in time when my work with Mr. Dandar involved doing a bunch of depositions of Scientology staff members or Scientologists or whatever and we worked together quite a bit then.

But then there came a period of time when it was time for the medical experts. Those people are the experts. He certainly didn’t need me there. So there came a point in time when I started working at the Lisa McPherson Trust.

Q In September of 2000 when that took place, you were on the payroll of the Lisa McPherson Trust, correct?

A It is possible, yes.
______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Jesse is — this is — Jesse, show him what you’re going to do if they come at you.

“Drop and fall. That is all. I’m going to fall down.

“Hey —

“You know what (inaudible).

“That is a good idea.

“Full resistance, that is our motto.

“How are you going to do it?

“Just carry the sign.

“Oh, my God.

“Kind of like the Three Stooges.

706

“The St. Pete Police.

“Yes, I told them I would be there by quarter to seven.

“Oh, God.

“Let’s do this.

“Guys, remember what we all agree with. We’re all staying together.

“Yes, boss.

(Inaudible.)

“Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Okay, well — Mmm, no.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)
______________________________________

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, that is one of your six pickets?

A Rhetorical.

Q Excuse me?

A That is one of the six pickets I have probably been in.

Q And in that video we saw Patricia Greenway, correct, who is in the audience, right?

A Show it to me again. I missed that.

THE COURT: Yes, she was there.

THE WITNESS: Okay. I’ll take your word.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Peter Alexander, who testified in this hearing?

707

THE COURT: I don’t know if he was there or not.

MR. WEINBERG: He was.

THE COURT: I didn’t recognize him, but —

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q The gentleman, sort of young guy in the pink or red shirt, that was Graham Berry, correct?

A Correct.

Q The lawyer from LA?

A Correct.

Q Now, your sign, “Mafia Cult”?

A Correct.

Q And that was —

A In relationship to the black operations that are run out of OSA.

Q And you were picketing, you walked from the LMT — this was an LMT operation, wasn’t it? That is where you-all left from, from the LMT?

A Yes.

Q And at that point, you were full-time at the LMT?

A I — I’ll stipulate to that, sure.

Q Except you were still working for Mr. Dandar, you were still doing stuff on the Lisa McPherson case, weren’t you?

A Well, you know, as I said, Mr. Weinberg, there
708

came a time when Mr. Dandar was solely doing medical experts. There was certainly no need for me to sit there through that.

MR. WEINBERG: One second, your Honor.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, you, Mr. Dandar and a number of other people from the LMT were at the closing when Mr. Minton closed on the purchase of the building either at the — at the beginning — January 5 of 2000, is that right?

A I believe that is correct.

Q And Mr. Dandar was — and you and Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks were very enthusiastic about the LMT and how the LMT was going to — to operate. Correct?

A Yes.

Q And Ms. Liebreich was very enthusiastic about the LMT opening, correct?

A I don’t think Mrs. Liebreich was there.

Q But do you remember that the first phone call that was made was made to Ms. Liebreich, and you talked to her, among other people?

A I think I remember something about that, yes.

Q And she was very enthusiastic about that. Right?

A She was very happy and proud that the last wishes of Fannie McPherson were actually taking effect, which was to expose any deceptive and abusive processes by

709

Scientology, you know.

Mr. Minton is — just wants reform, tired of people calling, tired of people saying, “Can you please help.”

Q Your testimony, I believe, was — and correct me if I’m wrong — that you never met with Mr. Dandar for any purpose — for any meeting type purpose at the LMT. Is that right?

A Correct.

Q Now, do you remember at this opening that — at this closing where, in essence, the LMT was opening, that you described — or someone described what your position and responsibility was going to be at the LMT?

A I don’t recall it specifically, Mr. Weinberg.

Q And you deny it was in charge of PR, right?

A Correct.

MR. WEINBERG: If you could play that, please.

This is another video from the LMT.
______________________________________

(WHEREUPON, the video was played.)

“Ken, I’m sorry there’s no more chairs.

“It is okay.

“Sign first — (inaudible).

“You want to sit down? Here is the — these are the — (inaudible).

710

“Did you bring the property insurance papers?

“Of course not.

“You didn’t?

(Inaudible.)

“You mean the balance, it’s everything you did fax me yesterday.

(Inaudible).

“The insurance papers are the closing paper for the mortgage.

“Yeah. Right. Right.

(Inaudible.)

“That is okay. That is okay.

“It’s just that we don’t have the check for him — or, we have the check but — (inaudible).

“How are we going to do it? How are you going to do it?

(Inaudible.)

“No, I’ll just tell you to send a check and how much it is. (Inaudible.) It’s a binder.

(Inaudible.)

“If Scott has a fax machine I can fax it to him.

“Hang on one second. Okay?

“Yes.

“Okay.”

711
______________________________________

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Is that Tom Tobin from the St. Pete Times?

A I believe it is.
______________________________________

“This is Steve Mitchell. This is Jesse Prince.

“Nice to meet you, Jesse.

“Nice to meet you.

“He’s an expert on Scientology in the Lisa McPherson case. He’s going to be also working at the trust.

“Oh. Terrific.

(Inaudible.)

“So he has an idea of what we’re dealing with. Big time, right?

“Big time, Bobby. This is too cool.

“Jesse, what are you going to do with this organization?

“Make it as successful as possible.

“I mean, what’s your job or what — do you have functions or duties or —

“I’m on the board of directors. And I’m going to just, you know, be here with the organization, get it through its initial phase of establishing itself, and run around and do public relations.

“Oh, really.

712

“Yes.

“He’s also an expert on the Lisa McPherson case so he’s going to be spending a lot of time with Ken Dandar so he’ll be –”

(Inaudible.)

“He’s been working, you know, intimately with Ken on this case for a long time.

“Oh.

(Inaudible.)

“You mean, does he own the building now?

“Thank you very much. Thank you. Scott.

“Thank you.

“Thank you very much. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate this.

“I wish you the best. I hope you do well with this.

“Thank you.

“Scott’s been under a lot of pressure, I’m sure.

“Congratulations.

“Thank you.

“Jesse.

“Hey, Ken?

“Hey, Ken?

“So anybody want to open that champagne?

(Inaudible.)

713

“Ken, your comments?

“Well, I think this is a good day for downtown Clearwater.

“Hi, Mike. How is it going?

“Happy New Year.

“We just closed on the building.

“Okay. Call me.

“I have a binder in my office.”

(End of playing of the video tape.)
______________________________________

MR. DANDAR: Could we have a stipulation that was edited by the defense?

MR. WEINBERG: I mean —

THE COURT: I don’t know if it was or not.

MR. WEINBERG: I mean, Mr. Bunker edited a lot of these tapes before he ever gave them to us. I mean —

MR. DANDAR: Well, whatever.

MR. WEINBERG: I mean —

THE COURT: All I can say, Counselor, it is available for you to get a copy of, so —

MR. DANDAR: I know.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, what was the Lisa McPherson trial consultant and the Lisa McPherson case lawyer doing at the closing of

714

the LMT building?

A It looks like they were partaking in the festivities, to me.

Q It does to me, too, Mr. Prince.

A Yeah.

Q Now, when Ms. Brooks said that you were going to be doing public relations, was your first job to get Tom Tobin from the St. Pete Times there?

A You know, I think that is a leap in logic. And I think the person that actually said doing public relations stuff was me. I don’t think it was Ms. Brooks.

Q All right, I stand corrected. When you said you were doing public relations, what did you mean?

A I think that that was just an offhand comment. And I didn’t even know what I meant. Maybe I had some intention on doing something public relations-wise.

But what factually ended up happening is once the door opened, the phones started ringing. And as I mentioned, you know, getting through the initial establishment part, to find out exactly what our role is going to be, it simply turned into servicing current and ex-Scientology members.

Q The way you got your message out was to carry signs and picket in front of the Church of Scientology?

A That was the one thing that was done.

715

Q And — but at this time when this started in January 5 of 2000, you were in charge of public relations but you were being paid by Mr. Dandar to be a so-called expert in the Lisa McPherson case. Correct?

A That is totally incorrect. There was no public relations. I was not doing public relations, orchestrating public relations, media contact.

Mr. Weinberg, if you have shown anything with the indiscretion I have used, public relations is not anything that I would even pretend to be versed in, so, you know, let’s move on.

THE COURT: I’m going to tolerate about one more of these, then I can’t stand any more for the day. I still do not know why we’re playing all of these, but —

MR. WEINBERG: I can explain.

THE COURT: I’ll let you do that in closing argument, but I can only stand one more today, so play it and —

MR. WEINBERG: I’ll play one more and it will be this one.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: December 2, picket across from the Ft. Harrison.

I want you to look for Mr. Dandar here. All

716

right?

THE WITNESS: Okay. All right.

THE COURT: What is the date again, Counselor?

MR. WEINBERG: December 2, 2000.

THE WITNESS: Was I at this picket?

(WHEREUPON, the video was played. No audio available.)

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q You recognize the person with the sign was Frank Oliver?

A Yes.

Q You recognize Teresa Summers? She testified in this case.

A Yes.

Q You recognize yourself?

A Yes.

Q You recognize Mr. Merrett?

A Yes.

Q You recognize Mr. Minton?

A Yes.

Q You recognize Mr. Dandar. Correct?

A Yes.

Q And that was in front of the Ft. Harrison during a picket, wasn’t it?

THE COURT: I didn’t see any signs except

717

one — I did not see what I would classify as a picket.

A There was no picket. And I remember this incident, if you’ll let me explain it to you.

Bob Minton had come into town and Ken needed to talk to him or see him for something. Mr. Dandar simply stopped by. Mr. Dandar was not a part of any picket or doing anything. He simply knew where Mr. Minton was going to be, he came there, spoke with him and left.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q So what were you-all doing there?

THE COURT: I saw folks across the street, Counsel, that had signs, then somebody said hi, went across the street. That is where Mr. Dandar was.

The sign was down. The only one person that had it, they were talking, then somebody put a sign up and went off like there was something else going on someplace else.

I don’t think it would be fair to classify what Mr. Dandar was in was a picket. I could not tell they were in front of any hotel, either.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Well, you recognize that was across from the Ft. Harrison?

A No, I do not.

718

THE COURT: I don’t know where it was because I couldn’t tell. It looked like a street corner. It might have been. I don’t recognize that.

MR. DANDAR: I can tell you, Judge. It was catty-corner across the street from the Ft. Harrison. These people with signs who were across the street from me, across the street from the Ft. Harrison, were standing in front of the new Super Power building. But I wasn’t part of any picket.

That is right.

BY MR. WEINBERG:

Q Now, was Mr. Merrett part of the picket?

A No, he was not.

Q Were you?

A No, I was not.

Q So you had been — so all these LMT people were sort of off to the side, and there were other LMT people that were holding signs?

A You know, again, Counselor, I’m not trying to be difficult here. You are showing snippets and you are drawing conclusions. The conclusion that I see from this snippet is we are simply standing there having a conversation. No one but no one is picketing.

THE COURT: Looks like there was getting ready to be a picket. There were people with signs, but

719

when they saw Dandar, it looks like somebody waved, walked across the street, the guy that had the sign, whoever that was, the one, put his sign down. When he picked up the sign, he went walking off to where I would presume a picket was going on. But those other folks were across the street that must have been going for a picket, I’m guessing.

I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

THE COURT: He’s still under oath. Same oath he’s taken. You only have to take it once.

You may continue, Mr. Dandar.

MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Wein, you’re going to hear some unusual evidentiary rulings here, because we’re dealing with things like, perhaps, state of mind of your client. However, you don’t have — you’re just — your client is nothing but a witness in this hearing. Therefore, as I told Mr. Battaglia yesterday —

MR. WEIN: I understand I can listen but I shouldn’t be standing up and objecting.

THE COURT: That’s correct.

And you might think, “What in the world kind of

0499

rulings is she making? She doesn’t understand anything about the rules of evidence.” This is an unusual hearing with unusual rules, and we’ve got some objections that have been made and will be preserved, that have been made, First Amendment objections, expert objections, stuff like that, that are preserved. So you might hear triple hearsay come in in this hearing. It’s just an unusual hearing. So —

MR. WEINBERG: So it’s both the lawyers that aren’t objecting —

THE COURT: Yeah. When you hear that —

MR. WEINBERG: (Inaudible.)

THE COURT: When the lawyers don’t object —

MR. WEINBERG: (Inaudible, simultaneous speakers.)

THE COURT: — just understand that we’re involved in somewhat of an unusual hearing, and I’ve made some somewhat unusual evidentiary rulings already. So we’re —

MR. WEIN: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: — taking it from there.

Continue.
__________________________________________
25
0500

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, I’m not sure I asked you this question yesterday or not, but are you aware that Mr. Minton received from me any information concerning any of the mediations in this wrongful death case?

A No, I am not.

Q Did Mr. Minton ever talk to you and say, “Oh, Ken Dandar told me this about the mediation and what was said at the mediation”?

A No, he did not.

Q Now, before you left the Church of Scientology, how many years did you know — personally know David Miscavige?

A I’d say about 12 years.

Q And yesterday you said you were a friend of David Miscavige?

A I said we’d been friends; we had been friends, close friends, at a point in time.

Q Okay. When did that friendship end, if at all?

A Well, it’s been quite a while since we’ve talked to each other. Probably — you know, if we talked to each other — I don’t know — maybe we could still find some friendship there. But we haven’t talked for quite a while.

Q Well, give us a year. When did you last talk to him?

0501

A ’92.

Q And is ’92 the year that you were no longer a Sea Org member?

A ’92 is the year that I left.

Q Okay. And prior to leaving, did you still consider him to be your friend?

A Yes, I did.

Q Okay. And did he work with you in RTC when you were deputy inspector general?

A Yes, he did. And as a matter of fact, more often than not I would report to him.

Q Rather than Vicki Aznaran?

A Together with Vicki Aznaran or without Vicki Aznaran.

Q Can you describe to the court his management style?

A Well, same management style that’s pretty much taught throughout the management series of Scientology, wherein an executive is expected to know about or be in control of all areas underneath the executive.

Normally when you have a person that’s high in the organizational chart in Scientology, you’ll have a seven-division org board. The person that is over that activity has to know the details of what’s going on in all of those seven divisions. Each division may be having three

0502

separate departments, as many as three separate departments, and different units within the department. So there could be a lot of people there. There is provisions for inspecting, getting information, and on and on and on, with that. But it’s very much expected to know everything.

But it certainly gets carried to an extreme, or certainly was carried on to an extreme during my tenure there, in that certain sections or areas would be micromanaged to the point where the staff in that area could only act on orders and comply with orders, comply with command intention, comply with programs. There was not a lot of original thought process going on in some areas by staff.

Q How far down the org board did you personally observe Mr. Miscavige micromanaging during your tenure?

A All the way down to the janitor.

Q Really.

A Yeah.

Q Would he manage that way with RTC or would he go outside of RTC?

A Would go outside of RTC. There’s plenty of examples of that.

Q Can you give us a few?

A Well —

MR. WEINBERG: Could we just date this? I was

0503

under the impression that when Mr. Prince was at RTC, Mr. Miscavige wasn’t. So can we put a date when he’s talking about?

THE WITNESS: I certainly will.

THE COURT: And what was that?

THE WITNESS: Well, I haven’t spoken of any instance yet, but the instance that I’m about to talk about right now happened in 1985 — and I do believe I’ve done a declaration about this before — whereby myself, David Miscavige, Vicki Aznaran, Mark Yeager, Mark Ingber, Ray Mithoff, the usual crew, came to the FSO.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Flag?

A Flag Service Organization.

Q In Clearwater?

A In Clearwater, Florida.

Went through the entire organization, started declaring suppressive persons of staff and public on the spot; people that we didn’t want or felt were inappropriate to be in the Flag Service Organization.

I’ve given a declaration about that before.

THE COURT: Have I seen that declaration?

MR. DANDAR: I don’t — I don’t think —

Was it — it wasn’t in this case, was it?

0504

THE WITNESS: No. I believe it was in another case.

I will certainly find it, when —

THE COURT: That’s all right. I just didn’t know — I didn’t remember —

MR. DANDAR: No, it wasn’t.

THE COURT: — reading it.

MR. WEINBERG: Does he know what cases?

Was it the Wollersheim case?

THE WITNESS: I believe it may have been.

A There’s another instance that was produced and written about by KSW News or Scientology News, where again the usual crew — myself, Miscavige, Lyman Spurlock, Ray Mithoff, Mark Ingber, Mark Yeager, several Scientology attorneys — went to San Francisco to have a mission holders’ conference with the current mission holders.

THE COURT: Go to the mission —

THE WITNESS: Mission holders. Mission holders would be like franchise holders, organization — The Scientology organization is one thing.

Then you can have a franchise of that which is called a mission. And the mission holder would be the owner of the mission.

THE COURT: I see.

A Anyway, we went up to San Francisco to have a

0505

mission holders’ conference. And prior to actually having the conference, we stopped in a local Scientology organization, the San Francisco organization, went through the entire organization, spoke to everyone in the
organization, and removed the executive from the organization, removed other people, and left.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What gave you the power —

MR. WEINBERG: Could you please date that one too, please?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What year was that?

A That one was 1982 — late ’82 or very early ’83, as I recall.

Q And what gave Mr. Miscavige and your group the power to go into a separate corporation, the San Francisco organization, and remove officers of the corporation?

A This is the subject of something I’ve also given extensive testimony and declaration about, because it goes to alter-ego within Scientology.

But there’s a thing called mission tech, where Sea Org members can get together on orders based on Sea Org programs, and go into any organization and take it over completely and remove its executives, alter, change its policy, change its board of directors, change whatever it

0506

wants to. And once it deems that the activity is performing to the expected standard, then the mission will pull out.

Normally these missions last for two, three weeks.

Q So it has to do —

THE COURT: Mission —

I’m sorry, Mr. Dandar. We must be driving you crazy.

The mission lasts for two or three weeks, meaning the mission church or the mission of these folks that are going in to take a look?

THE WITNESS: The mission of these folks going in to take a look —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And the officers of the corporation are removed because they’re doing —

I mean, what’s the reason for that? Let’s talk about the San Francisco organization.

THE COURT: Why is that relevant?

MR. DANDAR: It’s the power of the Sea Org, which is one of the issues raised at this hearing.

MR. WEINBERG: But it’s not an issue at this hearing. It may be an issue he’s trying to raise, but the issue at this hearing is whether or not, A,

0507

there was misconduct by Mr. Dandar and others; and B, whether or not there was a basis to allege that David Miscavige had ordered the killing, death of Lisa McPherson. Not Sea Org, none of that.

THE COURT: Well, part of the allegation was he was the head of the Sea Org, which was by — That is an issue.

MR. WEINBERG: But it’s — it — Mr. Miscavige, as we know, is not a party, because he didn’t pursue — that was the way they got him to be a party, by saying he was outside of the contract —

THE COURT: I —

MR. WEINBERG: — and —

THE COURT: — understand that, Counsel. But the allegation in the complaint that you are trying to get a summary judgment on and — and have dismissed as false is that David Miscavige did these certain things. And that still is part of the complaint, whether he’s a party or not.

MR. WEINBERG: There’s a lot of accusations in the complaint that I guess Mr. Dandar could have this hearing go for the next three months about, but that isn’t a central — I’ve said my piece.

THE COURT: Thank you.

0508

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So Mr. Prince, you and your party, which included Mr. Miscavige, ousting the corporate officers of the San Francisco corporation, what — what gave them the power to do that?

A Again, it was just Sea Org — it’s called Sea Org mission tech, where a person in the Sea Org, called a mission op, or operator — mission ops, it’s called — will put together a set of, like, project order to get done in the organization.

They may call for removing the executives; it may call for investigating and then removing upon determination; it may call for training; it may call for correction.

Q And back in late ’82, early ’83, when you and Miscavige and the others went to San Francisco, who was the head of the Sea Org?

A David Miscavige.

Q And when you left in ’92 —

THE COURT: Mr. Hubbard was still alive then?

THE WITNESS: In 1992, yes.

MR. DANDAR: No, ’82.

THE COURT: ’82.

THE WITNESS: Oh. ’82. Yes. I’m sorry.

THE COURT: And he was not the head of the Sea Org?

0509

THE WITNESS: Yes, he was. He was the commodore.

But you know, we were going through this whole song and dance to try to get tax-exempt status for the various organizations of Scientology, and the problem came up where I guess it was determined that L. Ron Hubbard — it was found that L. Ron Hubbard was the managing agent of Scientology and the Sea Org. And so Mr. Hubbard, by that time, had really separated himself for the purposes of allowing this church entity — these Scientology entities to get tax-exempt status. He had kind of separated himself totally from Scientology activity.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So when he separated himself, who took over as the head of the Sea Org?

A Miscavige. David Miscavige.

Q And when you left in ’92, who was the head of the Sea Org?

A David Miscavige.

Q Was there anyone in the Sea Org that had equal or greater rank than David Miscavige from ’82 to ’92 when you left?

A At the time before I left, David Miscavige — this

0510

whole thing with brevet rank and being a captain and stuff — this is something that happened, I believe, later, after I was done there.

Mr. Miscavige derives his authority from being the chairman of the board of nearly every — all of the major corporations. He’s on the board of directors somehow, where he derives —

And then also, as far as Sea Org is concerned, Miscavige — I mean, basically, L. Ron Hubbard passed the torch to Miscavige. He didn’t pass it to Miscavige; he passed it on to Pat and Annie Broeker. Miscavige got rid of Pat and Annie Broeker, so effectively took control of Scientology.

Q And did he take control of Scientology as the chairman of the board of some corporation or through the Sea Org?

A He took control of Scientology through — by corporate means. And he was able to — You see — you see, this may be a little confusing, so I think this is worth — takes a moment to explain.

The Sea Org operates on not only these green policy letters and these red bulletins that we’ve seen, but the Sea Org has its own issues and issue types that it operates on. And they’re called Flag orders. Flag

A So Flag orders — L. Ron — the last Flag order that he wrote, he turned over Scientology to Pat and Annie Broeker. He called them loyal officers. Loyal officers is a term that comes up from reading Scientology’s, quote/unquote, advance materials. That was — loyal officers were supposed to be the highest rank in Scientology.

Q All right. Now, why is it that paragraph 34 — based on your affidavit, why is it that it alleges that David Miscavige, outside of anyone else, would be the person who would have given this order to end cycle?

A Well, I think what my affidavit actually says is — is David Miscavige would have sat there with Ray Mithoff, with Marty Rathbun, the people that meet, to — to

0512

make sure that the flaps within Scientology that are a threat are dealt with. I think what I said there was that those three people would have gotten together and decided —

THE COURT: Ray Mithoff and who else?

THE WITNESS: Marty Rathbun.

MR. DANDAR: R-a-t-h-b-u-n.

THE WITNESS: Would have sat there with full knowledge and information of what was going on with Lisa McPherson. And instead of letting her be taken to a hospital, would have told these people to just let her stay there, and let’s see what happens here.

Let’s continue. See if we can, you know, finish the introspection rundown. Don’t put her on any line where she can tell a story about what’s happening to her.

In other words, let her die. If she dies, that’s what happens.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, what if the — based upon your tenure and your experience of working with Mr. Miscavige, Mr. Rathbun, Mr. — I’ve forgotten the third name.

A Mithoff.

Q Mithoff.

If Mr. Mithoff and Mr. Rathbun said, “No, no, no. We have these reports, that she needs to — she’s not

0513

doing — she’s getting worse. She needs to go to the hospital. Send her to the hospital,” and Mr. Miscavige says, “No. We’re not going to do that,” out of those three, who prevails?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. This is just rank speculation.

THE COURT: It would appear to be so, except I believe he indicated, back when he was at RTC, these same people were there?

MR. WEINBERG: No. Mr. Mithoff was in CSI.

Mr. Rathbun was not in RTC.

I — I mean, he —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince —

MR. WEINBERG: — at the time —

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it, because I know what the answer is. I mean —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, who was in RTC when you were in RTC, at these meetings?

MR. WEINBERG: No —

A The only people that were in RTC were myself and Vicki Aznaran. David Miscavige was the chairman of the board of Author Services, a for-profit corporation that was L. Ron Hubbard’s publishing company. However, that meant

0514

nothing in relationship to who were the principals of Scientology, who were directing — directing the actions of Scientology as a whole. And the people that were doing that were David Miscavige, myself, Vicki Aznaran, Mark Yeager, Mark Ingber, Lyman Spurlock.

THE COURT: Was there a majority vote taken?

THE WITNESS: There’s no such thing as a vote in the Sea Org, unless you’re deciding on a quality of food, in Scientology.

THE COURT: If you disagree on a decision, who made the final call?

THE WITNESS: If you disagreed on a decision — if you disagreed with someone that was above you, you would be sent for correction to straighten out your —

THE COURT: Look, if you folks are sitting around trying to decide something — you and all these people, you said, were kind of a — there — and you disagreed; you know, you said, “I think this should happen,” Ms. Aznaran said, “I think this should happen,” David Miscavige said, “I think this should happen,” who made the call?

THE WITNESS: Ultimately the person who would have the authority and everyone would have to follow would be Mr. Miscavige.

0515

THE COURT: So he — he made the final call.

THE WITNESS: Yes, he would say, “Okay. Yeah.

This is how you do it.”

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Would he get input from the others for —

A Yes. I mean, that happened. But the purpose — I mean, you know — and I just want to clear this picture — make this picture a little bit more clearer as to how it actually works.

Mr. — Mr. Mithoff, based on how it worked when I was there — I’m just going to explain this. Mr. Mithoff would have brought this situation to the attention of Mr. Rathbun. Mr. Rathbun would have looked over this — okay. And again, in my mind, I’m not going with the theory that she was crazy when they took her to the hospital; I’m not going with the theory that she just lay there and wanted to be there; I’m going with the theory that, just like she said, she wanted to leave. She was trying to leave. They incarcerated her, falsely incarcerated her, wouldn’t let her leave.

So Mr. Mithoff would have brought it to Mr. Rathbun’s attention. Because you have a threat. You have a person that is now escalated. They want to get out. And now they’re sick. It’s going bad — worse to bad. Mr. Mithoff would have taken and put an exact

0516

instructions in her folder, went over it with Mr. Rathbun.

And at the meeting they would have sat down with Mr. Miscavige and said, “This is the situation. This is the flap. This is the handling.” If their handling included not taking her to the hospital and keeping her there and doing Scientology on her, Mr. Miscavige would have said, “Fine.” If their handling would have been, “Look, I think we better take this risk even though she is antagonistic, and we got to send her to the hospital,” it is my opinion that his answer would have been, “No. You leave her right there.”

Q And why is that? What do you base that opinion on?

A I base that opinion on the fact that protecting Scientology is the ultimate goal of any Scientologist, irrespective of friend, family, business. Scientology comes first. Because the idea in Scientology is that Scientology’s going to save the world. And if you lose Scientology, you lose the world. So it’s the greatest good to protect Scientology than it would be to be concerned about an individual, or a group, for that matter.

Q Now, are you familiar with the term and policy letter called “bypass”?

A Yes, I am.

Q All right. Can you tell the court what that is?

0517

A Bypass is a situation — I guess I can just do a real example here using the court reporter. If this court reporter here were typing transcripts and she were making too many errors, someone else would have to come in here and take over her job and — while she goes and gets fixed or gets corrected, and takes over her actual job, and does the job until she’s able to perform it again.

Q Do you have an opinion whether or not, in Lisa McPherson’s case, bypass would have come into play?

THE COURT: I don’t understand that. I’m sorry. Maybe I just didn’t understand the example.

Maybe —

THE WITNESS: Okay. I’ll try to do another example, your Honor.

THE COURT: Bypass, to me, means you jump over somebody or you go around someone.

THE WITNESS: Well, you actually displace that person and assume their position.

THE COURT: Oh, I see. Okay.

THE WITNESS: Until they can do the job correctly.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you —

THE COURT: I don’t think he answered your

0518

question. I interrupted him. So if you want an answer, do you —

MR. DANDAR: Well, I’m going —

THE COURT: In the Lisa McPherson case —

MR. DANDAR: No —

THE COURT: — did bypass occur?

MR. DANDAR: I’m going to ask a question first.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: I’m going to interrupt myself.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you what I have marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 127, see if you can identify this.

A Okay.

Q Can you identify this?

A Yes, I can. This is what’s commonly referred to as a CBO, central bureau order. It’s another issue type that Scientology puts out, you know, like a bulletin or a policy letter. And this particular issue talks about senior management bypassing into lower areas or lower units within the Scientology infrastructure.

Q Under what circumstances would that happen?

A This would happen at any point where the senior officer or senior body felt that there was a situation going on in a lower area that wasn’t being dealt with to par.

0519

Q Now, do you have an opinion, based upon your experience in Scientology, whether or not, after your review of the Lisa McPherson matter, the policy bypass would have come into play?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection to competence. I don’t even know what this is. I mean, this is not written by L. Ron Hubbard, apparently. It’s not in the green volumes or the red volumes. There’s been no — there’s been no —

And Mr. Prince said he knew what bypass was. Well — but — and now he’s going to apply it to some hypothetical situation that he doesn’t have any personal knowledge of?

THE WITNESS: I think the issue speaks for —

THE COURT: I —

THE WITNESS: — itself.

THE COURT: I think for this purpose of this hearing, I just want to hear everything he has to say.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand. I just —

THE COURT: So I’m going to allow it.

MR. WEINBERG: Every now and then, I just need to get up to renew —

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: — my —

0520

Just so Mr. Wein —

Is it Wein —

MR. WEIN: Yeah.

MR. WEINBERG: Mr. — I’m “wine,” and he’s “ween.”

THE COURT: I want to hear everything —

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: — because I want to find out all the things that Mr. Prince may have, as Mr. Dandar’s consultant —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — told him about, so that I can have some understanding of the complaint and the allegations you’ve made. And so I’m going to allow it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you seen this document before today, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, I have.

Q And under what circumstances have you seen that?

A I have seen this during messenger training.

I had to, myself — when I went to Gilman Hot Springs in 1982, I became what’s called a commodore messenger. And I’ve explained that endlessly too. It’s a person — it’s an emissary of L. Ron Hubbard who has the

0521

same authority as L. Ron Hubbard. When they come with an order to an area, it’s like L. Ron Hubbard giving an order to an area. So you know, this has the highest level of priority, as far as compliance’s concerned.

I became a commodore’s messenger. And as part of being a commodore’s messenger, this was the first time in my study pack on the duties of commodore’s messenger that I read this particular issue.

Q Okay. And do you have an opinion whether or not this bypass would come into play in any part of the matter concerning Lisa McPherson?

A I think it would have certainly come into play, given the fact that Mrs. McPherson was not being cooperative or — and actually intended to leave Scientology. And this was consistent in what she was saying. So that’s like a breach of technology. There’s no such thing as Scientology not working, as far as the written materials are concerned. If Scientology doesn’t work, then something is wrong with the individual. Somebody has done something wrong or somebody has misapplied it.

So if you have a person in the extreme situation like Lisa was, that continued, that would be reason for bypass; to come in and, you know, deal with it specifically.

Q Who gets involved when bypass happens?

A For the FSO?

0522

Q Yes.

A Normally Ray Mithoff.

Q In what position?

A He’s the senior technical person internationally for Scientology. The Flag Service Organization is the senior mecca of technical perfection as far as Scientology is concerned, so the — the Flag Service organization is certainly one of the major providences of the senior CS international.

Q Now, a while back, you know, in my office, you pulled out an OW of Lisa McPherson —

THE COURT: OW?

MR. DANDAR: Overt withhold, abbreviated OW.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q — that she wrote in the fall of ’95, concerning February of ’95, where she mentioned management had to get involved? Do you recall that?

A Yes. This was a — right around the first time I believe that Lisa started experiencing severe difficulty with Scientology, as far as her relationship to it. And she mentioned that whatever was going on with her was — you know, technically it resulted in a bypass by senior management; a bypass of the Flag Service Organization, to specifically help her and deal with her situation.

Q Now, we already have in evidence and marked as

0523

Exhibit 96 —

And this is an extra copy.

MR. DANDAR: And Judge, I’ll show it to you if you need to see it again.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q But it’s the Heide Negro (sic) isolation watch report. Did you see that before?

A Yes, I did.

Q And on the second page it talks about —

THE COURT: That’s in evidence?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. 96.

THE COURT: Oh, okay. It’s been a long time.

THE WITNESS: I think she needs —

MR. DANDAR: It is a long time.

THE COURT: Thank you.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q On the second page, first paragraph of the last sentence —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, hold on. Mr. — I object to his competence — he has no personal knowledge of any of this.

THE COURT: I don’t even know what the question is going to be, so —

MR. WEINBERG: He’s now going into

0524

somebody’s —

THE COURT: Well, you don’t know what he’s going to go into because you haven’t heard the question. So let’s hear it and I’ll —

MR. WEINBERG: If I could —

THE COURT: Go on ahead with your question.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay. The first paragraph, it says that this data came originally from FSO CS, Alain Kartuzinski, who was in charge of John Taylor’s correction. Who —

THE COURT: See, I don’t even know where you’re reading from.

MR. DANDAR: I’m sorry. First paragraph on page 2.

THE COURT: Oh. Page 2.

MR. DANDAR: Yes. I’m sorry.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q “This was later corrected by a telex from Mr. Ray Mithoff, who indicated that the RD –” I guess that’s rundown —

A Right.

Q “– in fact could be delivered, at which point delivery commenced.”

0525

Now, what does that mean in plain English?

A There was a question of whether or not this person could be given the introspection rundown. Alain Kartuzinski apparently thought that no one was qualified at this particular location, which is their advanced organization in the United Kingdom. This person was — apparently had similar symptoms to what Lisa and other people were having that have that problem. And Mr. Mithoff — this, again — at management, was alerted.

And Mr. Mithoff indicated that the rundown could be given, because Mr. Mithoff is the senior-most technical person within the Scientology infrastructure. Senior FSO CS Alain Kartuzinski — any auditor or case supervisor located here in Clearwater, Florida, operating in the Ft. Harrison Hotel and the Sandcastle, are considered to be the cream of the crop as far as auditors and technically trained people are concerned.

Q Okay. Well, are you aware of evidence that you’ve seen where David Miscavige has become personally involved in the matters concerning Lisa McPherson?

A One thing that I saw where he actually comes out himself was a letter that was written to Mr. Bernie McCabe concerning dismissing the criminal case that was brought against Scientology for Lisa McPherson’s death.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, Mr. Dandar’s not

0526

taking the position that this justifies his accusation that David Miscavige murdered Lisa McPherson, whatever he’s got to show you, that happened in the criminal investigation.

THE COURT: No. I think what he’s about to show me, based on his question, is something that indicates that David Miscavige knew about the Lisa McPherson case. I don’t think —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I think —

THE COURT: — that that —

MR. WEINBERG: — the whole world knew about the Lisa McPherson case once there were people — once the church was indicted and people were walking around with picket signs.

Q Based upon your experience as a Scientology executive in RTC, why would RTC have anything to do or be involved with the Lisa McPherson matter?

A I think if you just look at the second paragraph on page 7 of this letter, the last sentence, I think that pretty much says it all. It says, “Therefore, if rapid, responsible and meaningful resolution of this case is to be achieved –”

THE COURT: Just a second. I can’t find out where you are. Page 7, what?

THE WITNESS: Second paragraph. Last sentence in the second paragraph.

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: Where it says, “Therefore, if rapid, responsible and meaningful resolution of this case is to be achieved, you and I are the persons to do it.”

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q You, meaning Mr. McCabe, and I, meaning Mr. —

A Miscavige.

Q — Miscavige?

A Correct.

Q Why would — again, why would Mr. Miscavige then be personally involved in the Lisa McPherson matter?

0528

MR. WEINBERG: Again —

A Again, bypass —

MR. WEINBERG: — isn’t this pure speculation on his part?

THE COURT: Well, I think that — that — I would read this that this was after the charge was brought.

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: And that Mr. Miscavige, as the ecclesiastical head of the church against whom a charge was brought, was saying, “If this is going to be resolved, Mr. McCabe, as the state attorney, and I, as the head of this church, need to sit down and try to resolve it.”

MR. WEINBERG: And of course, he was not successful at that point, because the case continued for another year. And we all know how it —

THE COURT: However, we perhaps need to hear from Mr. Prince how he believes that statement shows that Mr. Miscavige was involved before Lisa McPherson died. Which is what your point of the question —

MR. DANDAR: That’s where I’m heading, yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

0529

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How does that — how can you explain that as reference to, as the judge just said —

A I think the letter, you know, indicates Mr. Miscavige’s broad knowledge of every step of the criminal case, you know. And there’s no obvious evidence that he’s had involvement in this case, but it would certainly be my opinion that he has. Because again, this is a flap. It’s a bypass.

THE COURT: Well, Mr. Prince, let me just ask you what would seemingly be a logical question to me:

You could certainly have a situation — I’m not saying this is true or not true. But you could have — certainly have a situation where somebody didn’t know about somebody being ill, but when criminal charges were filed, because that person died, if they’re the head, they’d become involved and take over from that point.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. That is a rational line of thinking for, you know, regular world activities. But in Scientology, these — you know, Scientology —

THE COURT: I’m not saying that —

THE WITNESS: — is extremely —

0530

THE COURT: — Mr. Miscavige didn’t know.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: I am saying that another explanation — I mean, this is about a criminal charge —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — right?

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: And so you could certainly have —

THE WITNESS: Against the Flag Service Organization.

THE COURT: Yeah. You could have a situation where the ecclesiastical head, after criminal charges are filed, says, “Let’s you and I sit down and see if we can resolve this criminal case.”

THE WITNESS: Right.

Well, you know, where are the letters from the corporate heads of the Flag Service Organization, doing the same thing with Mr. McCabe?

THE COURT: I’m sorry. Where are the what?

THE WITNESS: The corporate officers of the Flag Service Organization. Where’s Mr. Ben Shaw’s letter to Mr. McCabe to sort this out? Why does this necessitate Mr. Miscavige? This is against the

0531

Flag Service Organization.

THE COURT: Well, because as I understand it, Mr. Miscavige is the ecclesiastical head of the Church of Scientology.

THE WITNESS: Every one of them.

THE COURT: Every one of them.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Yeah. There’s no disagreement.

So as I said, I can — I’m not saying that Mr. Miscavige did or did not know about Lisa McPherson’s situation when she was at the Ft. Harrison Hotel. Because quite frankly, that’s one of the issues.

But this letter just simply says that, “I as the head of this church, all of them, want to sit down with you and resolve this case.”

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: So how do you jump from that —

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: In other words, there’s lots of people who have testified that David Miscavige, as chairman of the board of RTC, knew about Lisa McPherson. There’s just no question in their mind.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: He would have known. He would have

0532

known because that’s the way business is done.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Sort of.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay. I’ve heard all that testimony. I presume you would testify the same.

But what does this letter add to this?

THE WITNESS: I — you know, your Honor, I think the only purpose of this letter is — is just to show what we were talking about earlier, when we were talking about the bypass and — and how, you know, it’s a pattern of conduct; how the organization does business. I think that’s the purpose of why this is in here.

THE COURT: Well, if this letter has relevance — if this letter has relevance, it has relevance to the, I suspect, agreed-to evidence in this case, which is that David Miscavige is the ecclesiastical head of the Church of Scientology, including — including Flag.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

THE COURT: Including all of the organizations.

MR. WEINBERG: The letter isn’t relevant to this proceeding.

THE COURT: No. It is not relevant to this

0533

proceeding, as I said, except that it might be relevant to that issue, which I assume is an agreed-upon issue.

MR. WEINBERG: The first church in the United States within 200 years is indicted, it’s not surprising that Mr. Miscavige —

THE COURT: No, it’s not.

MR. WEINBERG: — would want to try to find a resolution to it.

THE COURT: That is true, and that’s what I said. I don’t think it has any relevance to this proceeding unless it is to establish that indeed Mr. Miscavige is the ecclesiastical head of the church, including — including Flag.

MR. WEINBERG: He’s the ecclesiastical — he’s the ecclesiastical leader of the churches of Scientology.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: The religious leader of the Church of Scientology.

THE COURT: Well, ecclesiastical leader and religious leader are the same thing.

MR. WEINBERG: Right. Same thing. He happens to be the chairman of the board of an organization called RTC, but he’s the ecclesiastical or religious

0534

leader of Scientology.

THE COURT: Right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is Mr. Miscavige the leader of all of the Scientology churches as — because he’s the COB of RTC or because he’s the captain of the Sea Org?

A Because he’s the captain of the Sea Org.

Q When Mr. Miscavige was the captain of the Sea Org and the COB, of the for-profit corporation Office Services, Inc., ASI, was he the head of all of the churches of Scientology as well?

A Well, again, as your Honor correctly pointed out, Mr. Hubbard was alive at that time.

Q Oh, okay.

A Shortly after Mr. Hubbard passed, that was certainly the situation for a moment.

But immediately upon the death of Mr. Hubbard and the ousting of Pat and Annie Broeker, Mr. Miscavige assumed control of Religious Technology Center.

Q All right. And did he do that because he was the chairman of the board of ASI or the captain of the Sea Org?

A Because he was the captain of the Sea Org. You know, everything is done in the Sea Org with missions.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could he just answer —

0535

THE COURT: Yes. He’s answered the question.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I have a document — actually, it’s a notice of filing. I’m going to have to have the clerk mark this notebook. And —

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: All right. We’ll go ahead and take our morning break since it’s very close to that time. We’ll be in recess till 11:30.

(A recess was taken at 11:17 a.m.)

(The proceedings resumed at 11:37 a.m.)

THE COURT: You may continue.

MR. DANDAR: What I had marked and what I was about to hand the witness and the court, and not have to make an extra copy for Mr. Weinberg — which I didn’t because, quite frankly, he has all this, but I understand what he’s saying. He should have the same thing I’m handing — and that’s fine.

We’ll get that done over the lunch break — is Exhibit 130. It’s a compilation of documents, statements and depositions of staff.

But I’m only going to ask this witness about J, which is the narrative investigation of Detective Carrasquillo, April 15th, 1997.

MR. WEINBERG: I object to the use of this

0536

document. It’s just — it’s a — it’s not a sworn statement; it’s not a sworn statement of a witness. It’s just her — it’s a hearsay account of what she claims — I guess summarizes what somebody would have told her. That’s not evidence.

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: It’s not — certainly not for — I think where he’s going is that he’s offering it for the truth of the matter asserted. And it’s pure hearsay.

THE COURT: Well, it would be true hearsay if he’s offering it for the truth of the matter asserted, but I don’t know what he’s going to ask this witness. So let’s hear it.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince — of course, we obtained this document, you know, a year after your affidavit of August of ’99 —

A Mm-hmm.

Q — when this was made a public record —

But in paragraph 3, the interview summary of Mr. and Mrs. Ortner, O-r-t-n-e-r, indicates that Mr. Miscavige was staying at the Ft. Harrison Hotel —

MR. WEINBERG: That’s what I’m talking about,

0537

your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q — while they were there, around November 20th of 1995.

Do you — here’s my question: Do you know of circumstances or other occasions when Mr. Miscavige would stay at the Ft. Harrison Hotel?

A Yes, I do. Again, I’ll refer to the — to the video that was played the first day of my testimony where we were having a New Year’s Eve event. He would be there for that. He would be there for March 13th, which is L. Ron Hubbard’s birthday. They normally have an event at the —

MR. WEINBERG: Are you talking about a specific year?

A — and —

THE WITNESS: Excuse me?

MR. WEINBERG: About a specific year?

THE WITNESS: No. I’m talking — he asked me a question of when normally he would be there. I’m talking about —

MR. WEINBERG: All right. My objection is the question was whether he stayed there, not whether he was there. Big difference. And in this case there is no — I mean, if this is being offered that Mr. Miscavige was in Clearwater in November or

0538

December of 1995, it’s pure hearsay. And he wasn’t. And if he was —

THE COURT: I didn’t hear —

MR. WEINBERG: — he would have obviously — the state attorney would have done some investigation on it if that were the case. And it’s not the case.

But the question was whether he — whether Mr. Miscavige ever stayed at the Ft. Harrison Hotel, and Mr. Prince is talking about whether Mr. Miscavige was ever at the Ft. Harrison Hotel, which is completely different.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How did you understand the question, Mr. Prince?

A I understood the question as to at what times would Mr. Miscavige likely be at the Ft. Harrison.

Q Okay. All right. Well, let’s —

THE COURT: I think that has some relevance, if it was anytime around — in and around the time of Lisa McPherson’s stay at the Ft. Harrison.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So what events would he normally routinely come to in the Ft. Harrison?

A There would be auditor’s date —

Q Which is —

0539

A — which is sometime in September; there would be IAS —

Q What’s IAS?

A Excuse me. International Association of Scientologists. They have an event in the summertime, I think, that’s around June or something like that, they have an IAS event. The New Year’s event. L. Ron Hubbard birthday event.

Q Which is March?

A March 13th.

Some of the more common times that I can think of that he would be there.

Q What about non-Scientology holidays such as Thanksgiving?

A Not likely —

Q Okay.

A — in my experience.

Q Okay.

THE COURT: And the reason he would be at the Ft. Harrison Hotel as opposed to someplace else is because it’s the mecca of all —

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

The Ft. Harrison is a very beautiful hotel.

THE COURT: Is that — mecca of all technology — mecca of all technology?

0540

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Was —

THE COURT: Now, on a New Year’s event, I thought he was out in California on the tape that I saw.

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor. That was right in the Ft. Harrison.

THE COURT: Oh, it was?

MR. WEINBERG: You’re talking about two different tapes. The tape that you saw was California. The tape that Mr. Prince was in, was —

THE COURT: In Clearwater.

MR. WEINBERG: — in the Ft. Harrison.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: That was — Mr. Prince was 20 years ago; your — I don’t know when it was. 2000.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: It was less than 20 years ago.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q But anyway, do you — do you have any recollection of Mr. Miscavige staying at the Ft. Harrison Hotel rather than just showing up for an event?

A Well, when I testified earlier about Mr. Miscavige and myself, Vicki Aznaran, you know, the regular crew coming

0541

into the Flag Service Organization and rearranging and declaring some people, we stayed there at that time.

I mean, you know, whenever Mr. Miscavige would come to the Clearwater area, as well as myself, we always stayed at the Ft. Harrison Hotel.

THE COURT: What were the dates that Lisa McPherson was at the Ft. Harrison?

MR. DANDAR: November the 18th of ’95 through December the 5th of ’95.

THE COURT: Do you have any information that would say that David Miscavige was or was not at the Ft. Harrison Hotel on those dates?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, beyond what Mr. Dandar is presenting here today, I do not.

THE COURT: So regardless, if it weren’t for that hearsay document, you have no firsthand knowledge or other way of knowing whether he was there or not.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, one thing I wanted to ask you about that’s out of sequence, and that is after you left the Church of Scientology in 1992, did you have occasion after that time to consult with Scientology attorneys?

0542

A Yes, I did. I was contacted by Mr. Mike Sutter, who worked in the Scientology — worked in the Religious Technology Center. He told me that he wanted me to meet with Mr. Earle Cooley concerning ongoing church litigation.

Q And who is Mr. Cooley?

A Mr. Earle Cooley was lead counsel for Scientology during the early ’80s.

Q And what date or what month and year was this that Mr. Sutter asked you to meet with Mr. Cooley?

A You know, to the best of my knowledge, I do believe it was 1994.

We met in Boston.

Q What was the purpose of that meeting?

A Well, I thought I was going to go there to speak about current legal cases, because that’s what they told me they wanted me to speak about. But in fact, when I got there, it became quite a different show. They wanted me to reaffirm for them the fact that — you know, the — under the — reaffirm the conditions under which I left Scientology, the documents and things that I was — felt obligated to sign to leave. They wanted to update all of that again.

So they recorded me and — And I — and I guess I also found out that they were having trouble in the Wollersheim 4 case, in that —

0543

and they wanted to know if persons such as Vicki Aznaran, Lawrence Wollersheim, any attorneys, had contacted me to give testimony concerning Scientology.

Q And as of that time, had anyone contacted you?

A No.

Q And did they pay you for your time?

A Yes.

Q How much?

A I think it was 28- — 27-, $2,800.

Q Was that the last time you were consulted by any representative of the Church of Scientology on matters such as that?

A I believe so.

Q Okay. Now, Mr. Prince, you —

MR. DANDAR: And I am going to be jumping around here.

THE COURT: You said this was 1994?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 131. And I have highlighted certain portions of it. I’m going to direct your attention to certain areas. First of all, can you identify this document?

Q Now at the top it has references, and it has a bunch of HCO policy documents. Is that what — am I reading that correctly?

A Yes. There’s four HCO policy letters. The FO — there’s one Flag order; there’s one SPD, which is a Scientology policy directives; two more HCO PLs, another SOED, that’s a Sea Org executive directive; and a couple of more policy letters.

Q Okay. And the references for like the Sea Org executive director 4234 international, it says, “Coordination on security and investigation matters, suppressive acts.” Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q Did I read — maybe I didn’t read that right.

A Well, suppressive acts is the HCO PO, 23 December, ’65.

THE COURT: What does HCO stand for?

THE WITNESS: Hubbard Communications Office.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And the last HCO policy of October 27th, 1964 talks — or concerns physical healing, insanity and sources of trouble. Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

0545

Q All right. What does this document, mentioning insanity and healing and sources of trouble, have to do with security?

A Well, when you have a — an insane person or a source of trouble, potential trouble source within a Scientology organization, according to its policies, this is a source of great potential trouble for an organization, be it a Sea Organization or regular Scientology organization, and these gives — it gives the steps of prevention and handling.

Q Is “handling” a word that is used in the policies?

A Yes.

Q And in this particular checklist, it talks about — the second paragraph, where I’ve highlighted, uses, “Make sure the situations are actually handled.”

A Right.

Q Now, turn to page 2, letter G.

A Okay.

Q First of all, this list is below a paragraph that says the types of security situations, am I reading this correctly, where it says, G,”Attempted suicide cases or PTS Type IIIs and any external or antagonistic connections to these –” are these security issues?

A Absolutely.

Q Do you have an opinion whether or not this

0546

particular checklist would come into play in reference to the Lisa McPherson matter, in November and December of ’95?

A This — the date of this issue is the 11th of May, 1991, and it’s basically instructing the divisions within Scientology organizations to coordinate with OSA — Office of Special Affairs — to deal with the situations listed A through O, Type III — PTS Type IIIs being one of them, PTS Type III being the Scientology term for a psychotic.

Q Mr. Prince, this is, as you said, dated May, 1991.

Does it surprise you that it references policy letters that are written in 1959 and 1964 and 1968, et cetera?

A No. The words of L. Ron Hubbard are eternal to Scientology.

MR. DANDAR: I’d like to move Exhibit 131 in evidence.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. WEINBERG: No objection. I don’t know what the relevance is, in light of the fact that there isn’t anything about RTC in this document.

THE COURT: It’ll be received.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. And Mr. Prince, let me show you Exhibit 129. I don’t have an extra copy here, for some reason. Oh, I do. Okay.

0547

Remember yesterday we talked about in order to get the injectable Valium prescriptions and the chloral hydrate prescriptions from drugstores, you talk about staff — somebody filling out what’s called a CSW, completed staff work?

A Yes.

Q All right. This document, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 129, do you know where this comes from?

A Yes. This comes from the Hubbard Administrative Dictionary, which is a dictionary that defines administrative terms used in Scientology organization.

Q Okay. And the definition of completed staff work, does that fit within your understanding of what you testified to yesterday?

A Yes, it does.

MR. DANDAR: Like to move 129 into evidence.

THE COURT: It’ll be received.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Also Mr. Prince, you mentioned several times today that — when I was asking you about bypass and Mr. Miscavige’s role, you mentioned you had prior declarations. Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 132.

First of all, what is 132?

A This is a supplemental declaration that was submitted in the Los Angeles courtrooms on behalf of

0548

plaintiff Lawrence Wollersheim.

Q And this is your declaration?

A Yes, it is.

Q It’s dated December 22nd, 1999?

A Yes.

Q Is this one of the declarations you were referring to when you said you — in your testimony today, that you had previously filed declarations on the matters that we talked about?

A No.

Let me just scan it here real quick.

Q All right.

A Well, yeah. I think right — starting on page 2, under the subtitle Sea Organization, I talk about Scientology missions, meaning, you know, a group of people going into an organization, taking it over. I talk about that.

Q And on page number 40, you talk about —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I object to this. Why are we doing this? Mr. Dandar can ask him questions, but this is just a hearsay — I mean, this is an affidavit. He’s on the stand. I mean, if there’s something he wants

to ask him about, he can ask him, instead of saying, “On paragraph such and such it says such and such.”

0549

THE COURT: Well, I would normally tend to agree with you, except we have affidavits, prior declarations of so many people in this case, I don’t know why I would keep the prior declaration of Mr. Prince’s out.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q But Mr. Prince, the command channels and structure of the hierarchy of the Church of Scientology in this declaration, Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number 132, is it any different than your testimony than you’ve given in

this case today?

A No, it is not.

Q Is it any different than your — and the reason why you reached the opinions you reached in August of 1999 concerning David Miscavige’s role in Lisa McPherson’s death?

A No, it is not.

MR. DANDAR: I’d like to move 132 into evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 132.

THE COURT: I’m going to receive it over objection, just as a prior affidavit that —

MR. WEINBERG: Right. I mean, I — the objection would be, normally, just buttressing his testimony.

THE COURT: That is true. In other words, that would be exactly right. And that would be proper

0550

objection, not hearsay or —

However, I’m going to let it in.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. Now, Mr. Prince, have you worked with Mr. Michael Rinder in your tenure in Scientology?

A Yes, I have.

Q And what did — how did — under what circumstances?

A Mr. Rinder was a member of the watchdog committee during my tenure at RTC. He was a member of the watchdog committee, a commodore’s messenger, and he worked for the corporation the Church of Scientology International.

Q What is the watchdog committee?

A The watchdog committee are the principals of the Church of Scientology International. The principals of each sector and section of Scientology — if you look at a Scientology org board, you will — you will see it’s broken down into certain sections and sectors. One — one sector of Scientology is Scientology International. That means all of the organizations that are not Sea Org organizations and are not missions.

So you would have a WDC member, a watchdog committee member, for the Scientology organizations. Then you’d have a WDC member or a watchdog committee member for the Sea Organization. You would have a watchdog committee

A The chairman of the watchdog committee, during the time — my tenure in Religious Technology Center, was Mark Yeager.

Q And did Mr. Miscavige serve on that board as well?

A No, he did not.

Q Okay.

A That board reported to Mr. Miscavige.

Q So Mr. Miscavige was above that board?

A Correct.

Q Now, Mr. Prince, based upon your experience and expertise in Scientology, do you have an opinion as to why Michael Rinder was meeting with Bob Minton to try to get the McPherson case dismissed, as early as 1998?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection to the — I mean, this is pure speculation. It is — it’s — I think it’s improper opinion testimony. He says that he has some expertise — which we have challenged, you know, for a number of
reasons — with regard to the religious technology.

Now he’s going to be speculating as to why someone would have been meeting with Mr. Minton? Mr. Minton’s testified regarding that; Ms. Brooks

0552

has testified in regard to that meeting at length.

THE COURT: I — I understand. We’ve had some opinions in — I don’t know why we wouldn’t listen to his, too. I mean —

MR. WEINBERG: I — it’s more frustration than anything.

That’s my objection. I understand that you’re overruling it, and I just wanted to —

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINBERG: Thank you.

A Sorry. I don’t remember the question.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Why would Mr. Rinder —

First of all, is Mr. Rinder part of the Flag Service Organization?

A To my knowledge, he is not.

Q Do you have an opinion as to why Mr. Rinder would be meeting with Mr. Minton, as early as 1988, and of course in 2002, to get the Lisa McPherson case dismissed?

A Certainly I have an opinion, based on experience. Because like the Wollersheim case that happened here, and the Mayo case, any major case that’s being litigated in the United States, irrespective of the corporation, the decisions, the planning and the execution of legal is done with OSA — Office of Special Affairs, David Miscavige,

0553

Marty Rathbun.

Q All right.

A Lyman Spurlock if it — if it involves corporate. Lyman Spurlock was an expert on corporate entities.

THE COURT: Who is Mr. Rathbun? What is his capacity?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Rathbun has had many capacities. Prior to coming into the Religious Technology Center, he was what was called a client affairs; legal client affairs. And he handled the legal affairs for the publishing aspect for Mr. Hubbard in Author Services. When he moved to Religious Technology Center, he became the inspector general for ethics. Ethics —

THE COURT: Is that what he is now?

THE WITNESS: I’m not sure what he is now —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — your Honor.

But that position handles all legal PR and intelligence as part of its duties for Scientology organizations.

THE COURT: And do I recall correctly — I know we’ve had a vacation, and frankly some of this has escaped me —

Is Mr. Rinder the head of OSA?

0554

MR. DANDAR: Well, Mr. — at one time, Mr. Shaw, who is the head of OSA here, was — testified that he reported — his senior was Mr. Rinder. What his title was to be Mr. Shaw’s senior, I don’t know.

THE COURT: Well, OSA would have a —

Okay. I believe there’s testimony about that in this hearing that he is the head of the Office of Special Affairs. I think. Maybe not.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: Which includes legal.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, let me show you what’s already in evidence as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 110, known as KSW News. And if you could, I’m going to —

THE COURT: I don’t know — I allowed the answer, but I don’t know what the answer was. I mean, the answer —

MR. WEINBERG: Mr. Shaw can explain it to you.

THE COURT: No. What — what I think — he went off to tell us about Mr. Rathbun. I think the question was why would it have been — why would Mr. Rinder have been called to this meeting. And

0555

is — what is your answer?

THE WITNESS: Right. Because Mr. Rinder would have been in that position, the senior person within the OSA network. And OSA operates on a statistic, just like other departments and sections within the Scientology organization operate on. And a statistic for the OSA would be a threat handled; a threat being a lawsuit or a person that was perceived to be an adversary against Scientology or taken an adversarial position against Scientology.

So getting rid of a lawsuit would be something that would improve conditions, you know, a statistic going up. That would be a good thing for them.

So — and that’s what they focus and concentrate on, handling legal situations.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q OSA.

A Yes.

Q All right. The KSW News, if you open up to the little — I believe it should be in the middle — there is a list of matters that need to be reported up lines to RTC.

A Yes.

Q Do you see that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And there’s an arrow that I drew —

0556

THE COURT: You all are too loud back there. Go ahead.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q — next to PTS Type III?

A “Any person who acts PTS Type III, potential trouble source.”

Q Okay.

A And that is of concern.

Q Does PTS Type III include people who are psychotic as well as people who want to leave? A Correct.

Q Now, this publication, when was it published?

A 1994 —

Q And —

— is when the copyright notice is on it, RTC copyright notice.

Q All right. So it certainly wasn’t published after Lisa McPherson died in ’95.

A No, it was not.

Q Now, this reporting up lines of PTS Type III to RTC, was that in effect when you were an active Scientologist?

A Yes, it was.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, excuse me. What does that mean, an active Scientologist? When he was —

0557

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Prior to ’92. Prior to you actually leaving —

MR. WEINBERG: When you were at the RTC?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, it was.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, these meetings that you had with David Miscavige and Rathbun and Mithoff, Aznaran and others, you said there was a certain agenda?

A Correct.

Q And that the top of that agenda for each of these meetings was what?

A Flaps.

Q All right. What was —

A And what the handlings were.

Q — the next —

How they were handling the flaps?

A Yes.

Q What was the — give us a list of — in priority of each meeting.

A Flaps and handlings. Then statistics, go over the statistics of the departments, the divisions. Then you talk about — the next thing is talk about wins.

Q Wins.

A Wins. You know, successes. Scientology successes. Successes on the job, successes within the

0558

organization.

Q And how often would these meetings occur?

A Once a week.

Q And this is just a meeting of people who were at RTC?

A No. This is a pattern that is continued throughout the majority — all of Sea Org organizations.

Q That includes Flag?

A Yes.

Q And back in —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could I — the question was about Mr. Miscavige, and the answer obviously was way broader. You’re not — I don’t think Mr. Prince was saying Mr. Miscavige was having meetings on a weekly basis at all the Scientology organizations.

THE WITNESS: No, no. That’s not —

THE COURT: He’s saying, when he was a member and he would meet with these people, what was their agenda? That’s all —

MR. WEINBERG: Right. No — but then the next question was — then what he said was, “And this is done in all Scientology organizations,” which means — I think what he meant was there’s meetings every week in Scientology organizations with people

0559

in the org. That’s what —

THE WITNESS: The pattern of flaps and handlings, statistics and wins, is a pattern that every Sea Org organization has in their meetings, their weekly meetings. Miscavige isn’t at those meetings. I —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q But at the meetings that you had and you participated in with Mr. Miscavige, were these meetings — when you say flaps, were they just — my question was, did they just concern RTC or was it flaps —

A No.

Q — of what —

A When RTC has a meeting about flaps and handlings, it could include any aspect of the Scientology empire. It could include the FSO; it could include the organization in Australia if there was a threat in Australia of some org getting ready to be closed down, or if one of the Scientology organizations were raided in Greece or whatever.

You know, it could be anyplace.

Q All right.

A Because the problems were existing — in the lower organizations, their flaps —

THE COURT: You need to get to the point.

In your opinion, as somebody who was with — in

0560

RTC, at the time you were there, would the Lisa McPherson situation have been discussed at one of those meetings.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Is there any doubt about that?

A No. And as I was getting ready to say is, the reason being is the lower organizations have to report to the higher organizations. The higher organizations have to approve the handlings for the flaps; have to verify the statistics. Then it goes to the next organization, who’ll do the same thing. And by the time it gets to RTC, it’s pretty much confirmed what the lower organization is saying.

And maybe the handlings may be modified, but you know, they’re pretty much all on the same page.

Q Is there any doubt in your mind — as you sit here today, do you question your opinions that you reached in your August, ’99 declaration concerning the involvement of Mr. Miscavige in the Lisa McPherson as a PR flap?

A No. I haven’t changed my opinion one bit.

Q And is that opinion solely your opinion or are you being influenced by anyone to make that opinion?

A I base my opinions on my personal experience, what I’ve observed, the written word of L. Ron Hubbard.

0561

Q All right. Now, let’s jump now to 2002. The — we left off with your meeting — I believe you said you had this rather un- — not unpleasant, but bad — heated words were exchanged at that hotel, the Radisson on Clearwater Beach, when you met with Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks. Do you recall that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And Ms. Brooks walked out to the parking lot with you?

A Yes.

Q All right. I want to pick up from there.

When is the next time you recall having further conversation with Ms. Brooks or Mr. Minton?

THE COURT: What — do we have the date on that?

MR. DANDAR: April the 14th.

THE COURT: Okay.

A The last —

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think he said that —

MR. DANDAR: Yeah. April the 14th.

THE COURT: Well, he said the dates were as they were in his affidavit, ’cause he sat down with a calendar.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

A The next time that I talked to them, I think, was

0562

maybe a week or some days later, when they were staying at another hotel — oh, wow. Windham, the Hyatt Windham Hotel. I called and spoke to Bob and asked if he wanted to come by to the — ’cause I was having a barbecue.

MR. DANDAR: All right. And Judge, just for the record, I am looking at his April, 2002 Jesse Prince affidavit.

Q Mr. Prince, the handwritten note, did you write that when you met with me and Mr. Lirot?

A Yes, I did.

Q Okay. And after that is when —

Maybe I’m confused. Let’s hold on.

After that is when you had the dinner with Mr. Minton?

A After I wrote this handwritten note is the Sunday that I met with them at the Radisson.

Q Is that when you had that heated conversation —

A Yes.

Q — at dinner?

A Yes.

Q Was that — were you supposed to meet Mr. Rinder

0563

that day?

A Correct.

Q And who told you that?

A Mr. Minton, Mrs. Brooks.

Q And did you meet with Mr. Rinder on April 14th, 2002?

A No, I did not.

Q Why not?

A Because it was deemed by Mr. Minton that I was not ready, because I was not willing to perjure myself.

Q And who told you that?

A Mr. Minton.

Q How did he want you to perjure yourself?

A He wanted — he wanted me to come in and say that you influenced me to write the August, ’99 declaration that I did; that you put words in my mouth. And he wanted me to say that some meeting occurred where Mr. Minton was at, where you talked about adding David Miscavige on as a party.

And he kept using this term of, like, “You have to walk with us on this because we’re going to show you what to do. You know, we’re the A team. We got to be together on this. There can’t be any breaks. This is what we’re doing. This is what I’m saying. This is what you need to do to back it up.”

Q How did you respond?

0564

A “I absolutely will not do it.”

Q Did Mr. Minton ever indicate to you that he knew that he was lying?

THE COURT: Could I ask —

Just one more minute.

What you’re saying — which affidavit is it that they — they, meaning Mr. Minton — wanted you to say Mr. Dandar influenced you to write?

THE WITNESS: The one where I wrote that Miscavige had knowledge and culpability in Lisa McPherson’s death.

THE COURT: The one that dealt with the change — or the amendment of the complaint. Is that the one he’s talking about?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. That’s the one he’s talking about.

THE COURT: That would have been the first affidavit he filed maybe in this case? Well, it doesn’t matter.

MR. DANDAR: No. The first one, I think, was the PC folders.

THE COURT: I know which one you’re talking about.

THE WITNESS: It was the second one.

MR. DANDAR: It’s the August, 1999 affidavit.

0565

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: And he also wanted you to state —

THE WITNESS: That Mr. Dandar had had a meeting with myself, Mrs. Brooks, Dr. Garko, Mr. Minton, to discuss adding Mr. Miscavige on as a party.

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: And apparently Bob was saying, you know, and we have to say that Mr. Dandar said that the meeting never happened, and you know, we were adding on Miscavige basically to try to force Scientology into a settlement position.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Was any of that true?

A No.

THE COURT: Could we find out, since that does seem to be an issue here, what he remembers about whatever meeting there was to discuss adding Mr. Miscavige as a party? Or are you not ready for that, or are you not going to go there, or —

MR. DANDAR: Well, I’m trying to not invade my work product as much as possible. But it is an issue, and so I didn’t — We can ask him that question.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: I just don’t know how far I want

0566

to invade my work product.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q But Mr. Prince, do you recall having any meeting with me, Dr. Garko and Stacy Brooks about adding on David Miscavige —

THE COURT: I’m not going to let them get into the extent of the discussion necessarily, other than what we’ve done thus far in this hearing, which is who was there —

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

THE COURT: — and was there a discussion about adding Mr. Miscavige, and who was in favor of it and who wasn’t? That’s pretty much all that’s been discussed.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: And it’s been discussed by a lot of witnesses —

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: — Stacy Brooks, Mr. Minton, Mr. Garko, you.

MR. DANDAR: All right. So — That’s fine.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So was there such a meeting?

A There was a meeting between you, myself,

0567

Mrs. Brooks, Dr. Garko, where we discussed — and I mean, my recollection is there’s been more than one time that we discussed this — about adding Mr. Miscavige on as a party.

Q Was Mr. Minton ever at any of those meetings?

A No, he was not.

Q Do you have any idea why Mr. Minton would tell you, when you met with him in April, why he wanted to say he was at a meeting to add on David Miscavige?

A Because the idea was —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. If it’s something Mr. Minton told him, fine. But otherwise it would just be pure conjecture.

THE COURT: That’s true. If it’s something Mr. Minton told him, then he can discuss it.

Go ahead.

A Okay. The idea that Mr. Minton told me is Scientology had several things that they wanted Mr. Minton to do. These were in conjunction and coordination with things that could be done to get the case dismissed. Specifically, going after you. Specifically, you were to be made the target of whatever stack of papers that Scientology provided to Mr. Minton. There was five or six things that they wanted him to do in relationship to you only. And you were the obvious target —

0568

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Why?

A — to —

Because they wanted to get you kicked off the case. Because they figured if they got you kicked off the case, then no other attorney would pick it up and the suit would simply go away.

Q And Mr. Minton told you this.

A Yes.

Q And how many times did he tell you that?

A Several.

Q Did Mr. Minton ever indicate to you that he knew that what he was saying about me was not true?

A Mr. Minton was in — in the — in the very beginning, Mr. Minton was in anguish over the — the prospect of — of lying on behalf of Scientology for — against you. Mrs. Brooks was in a panic and desperate frame of mind to do whatever it took to extricate Mr. Minton from just the assault that Scientology was enacting upon Mr. Minton. And she thought that it would be a good idea for Mr. Minton to cooperate with Mr. Rinder, with Mr. Rosen, whatever they wanted, to get him extricated from the Scientology assault.

Q Did Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks tell you that —

Well, you said they — let me go back.

0569

You said something about Scientology gave Mr. Minton a stack of papers about what he needed to say against me?

A Yes.

Q What —

A Or possible things to go into. And that’s the stuff that came from the Adams Mark Hotel, after we had the meeting, after I went to see him again, after he lied the first time on the stand.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, objection.

A And —

MR. WEINBERG: If this is —

THE COURT: Wait a minute.

MR. WEINBERG: If this is the same stack that Mr. Prince testified yesterday that he never looked at —

THE COURT: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: — so how’s he going to answer questions about what was in the stack?

THE COURT: He’s not answering questions about what was in the stack. He’s talking about what Mr. Minton told him. That’s all he’s supposed to testify about.

MR. DANDAR: That’s what he’s doing.

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

0570

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q You didn’t look at the stack of papers, right?

A No, I did not.

Q So how do you know what was in the stack of papers?

A ‘Cause he told me. There were five to six things in there that Scientology wanted him to do against you, and you specifically, and you only.

Q Okay.

A And two of them were the check. You know, somehow saying that you caused him to perjure himself concerning the check. And then the meeting. These were two very important issues to —

You know, I can’t say that I fully understood it because I’m not a lawyer, but this was very important that they executed in that way.

Q Okay. And let’s talk about the check, all right?

A Okay.

Q Did Mr. Minton ever tell you that — after he met with Scientology, did he ever tell you that the check was from him; that May, $2,000 (sic) check for $500,000?

A At that time he did.

Q All right. Did you have any conversation with him as to why he told you something different on the roof of the parking lot across from the Lisa McPherson Trust office?

0571

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Asked and answered. He talked about that yesterday.

THE COURT: I think he did.

MR. DANDAR: Did he?

THE COURT: Yeah, I believe he did.

MR. DANDAR: All right. Okay.

THE COURT: Do you remember — sometimes one day bleeds into the next. I do know he talked about being on the roof of the parking lot, and I do know he talked about Mr. Minton telling him something different. Did he — Did you discuss yesterday with us why Mr. Minton said he was telling a different story now? I don’t remember.

THE WITNESS: Well, yes, your Honor. Your recall is actually quite correct. Because you yourself asked me, “Well, what did they say,” when I brought up the fact that we had been on the roof. And he had told us this whole different story. And you asked me, “Well, what did they say,” and I said that, “They just looked at me stupidly.” But of course —

THE COURT: So is the answer then he really didn’t say anything about this difference —

THE WITNESS: Right.

0572

THE COURT: — that you’re telling that —

MR. WEINBERG: Changed the subject.

THE COURT: Changed the subject.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you ever talk to him again about the check, or was that the last time?

A I think that is the last time I spoke to him about the check.

Q Okay. Did you have any other conversations with Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks about trying to get you to lie and go down the road with him, as you say?

A Well, I had continuing conversations with them after negotiate — after they had the negotiations in New York and then began the negotiations — continued the negotiations in Clearwater.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, my objection, your Honor, is he went over all this yesterday.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

MR. WEINBERG: I mean, now we’re going back and we’re going to go repeat what happened yesterday.

THE COURT: That’s true. I think we really were, yesterday, up to the point of this forward meeting.

0573

MR. DANDAR: That’s right.

THE COURT: Although frankly, you never did discuss the meeting where there was a discussion to have Mr. Miscavige added. And I think he’s done that now.

MR. DANDAR: Yes, he has.

THE COURT: Right. And — and that was the second thing. And I — I think now you’ve explained that. So you can go — I shouldn’t say you — Mr. Prince can explain what.

THE WITNESS: There was something I left off about Mr. Miscavige — adding Miscavige as well, in the discussions that I had with Mrs. Brooks and Mr. —

THE COURT: Oh, yeah. I don’t believe he’s ever discussed with us what his discussions with Mr. Minton were about that.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: So you might want to.

MR. DANDAR: Oh.

THE WITNESS: Right.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: As you well know, and certainly Mr. Weinberg well knows, we all sat before Judge Moody forever on this issue of adding David

0574

Miscavige as a party. We discussed this back and forth.

MR. WEINBERG: “We” being —

THE WITNESS: The judge said a key question to be asked was, is was that anything I wanted to have happen? The answer is no. I was not in favor of adding David Miscavige. I thought it would drag down the lawsuit and just be cumbersome.

THE COURT: That’s you. You were not in favor of adding him.

THE WITNESS: Right.

But in discussions about this, it was decided to do it anyway, and it was decided because this is what Ms. Liebreich wanted to do. But we discussed this. And my — my thing with Mr. Minton as we were talking about this when they were trying to get me to do this, is when the record is so obvious why and how that happened, why are you now trying to say it’s just all Ken’s fault, when Mrs. Brooks was the one that was really wanting this to happen; wanting to add Miscavige? So we talked about that.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay.

0575

THE COURT: And what did he say?

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me. Talked about it when, then?

So now it’s Ms. Brooks or Ms. Liebreich that wanted this to happen. I mean, I —

THE COURT: No. No. I understand this. Wait till you get the transcript.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.

THE COURT: It’ll be very clear to you. Don’t get all flustered.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m not flustered.

THE COURT: Yes, you are.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m hungry.

THE COURT: I’m hungry too. We’re going to stop at 12:30. Did you say you were hungry?

MR. DANDAR: That’s what he said.

MR. WEINBERG: That’s what I said.

MR. DANDAR: That’s a new objection.

THE COURT: Just so we see if the testimony’s consistent —

At this meeting, Jesse Prince was not in favor of adding Mr. Miscavige; Stacy Brooks really wanted to add David Miscavige. What about Dr. Garko?

THE WITNESS: Dr. Garko was hesitant about it.

And —

0576

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And Mr. Minton didn’t care one way or the other. I mean —

THE COURT: I thought Mr. Minton wasn’t there.

THE WITNESS: You know, later, when we discussed it, when, you know, Stacy — we went to the office. And Stacy says, “Well, I think, we’re going to do this,” and he’s, like, “Yeah, okay. So what?” Because Mr. Minton always — you know, he was concerned about what he was doing. Mr. Minton wasn’t concerned with what Mr. Dandar was doing or — or what Mr. Prince was doing or Mr. Brooks (sic). He had his own agenda. When he came down to — here in Florida, he would be more concerned about what he was doing.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, was there a meeting with Mr. Minton?

A No.

Q Well, what are you talking about when you said Minton — Mr. Minton didn’t care?

A I recall Stacy Brooks and myself having a conversation with Mr. Minton, mentioning the fact that we were doing this.

Q Oh, okay. Was I there, or Dr. Garko?

A No.

0577

Q All right.

A No. And he’s like, “Okay. Where do you guys want to eat,” type of thing. You know, he just didn’t care.

“Okay.” You know, that’s — “Ken –” “Whatever.”

Q Did Mr. Minton ever tell you he had an agenda?

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor, could we date that meeting?

MR. DANDAR: Yeah. Let’s date the meeting.

MR. WEINBERG: And where it was?

MR. DANDAR: Yeah.

THE WITNESS: When Stacy and I discussed it, I think it was probably — some — maybe a week or sometime prior to the fifth amended complaint actually being filed —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well —

A — we discussed it.

Q — there were several times that the fifth amended complaint —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, your Honor —

A Well, okay. To answer the question, no, I don’t know when it was. I just know —

THE COURT: No. I think —

MR. WEINBERG: My objection was Mr. Dandar prompting him.

0578

THE COURT: No, he wasn’t prompting him.

There were several fifth amended complaints. I would like to know.

Was it the fifth amended complaint where Mashburn (sic) and — Rathbun — all those other people were added or was it the fifth amended complaint that’s now the complaint?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor — I don’t —

THE COURT: Or do you know?

THE WITNESS: I don’t have a clear recollection of which —

THE COURT: Was this a discussion where it was decided to add Mr. Miscavige as, I guess, chairman of the board of RTC — I don’t know how — I’ve never seen that complaint — or was it before the discussion to add Mr.

Miscavige as head of the Sea Org?

THE WITNESS: I think it was after the discussion to add — after it had been resolved that Mr. Miscavige could be added as head of the Sea Org.

You know —

THE COURT: After it was resolved by whom? By Judge Moody?

THE WITNESS: Yes. By Judge Moody.

THE COURT: Then you had a discussion with

0579

Mr. Minton about this?

THE WITNESS: Yeah. I believe he, Stacy and I were in the car, traveling, and we talked about it.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So it was after the hearing we had, you said took forever, with Judge Moody?

A I know that it became a serious possibility after we exhausted, in front of Judge Moody, every way of whether or not it would be correct or appropriate or even allowed to do it; coming in as head of the Sea Org, when Judge Moody said that it could — that he could be added as head of the Sea Org, not as COB because of that agreement.

Q Right.

A Which, you know, I didn’t even know about until after the fact.

MR. DANDAR: All right. Okay. Probably a good time to break for lunch, unless you have a question, Judge.

THE COURT: I think it’s a good time to break for lunch. We’ll be in recess — you know, an hour just isn’t enough. I need to make some phone calls and sign some things. We’re going to break until quarter till 2.
Court’s in recess.

MR. WEINBERG: And the same instructions to

0580

Mr. Prince.

THE COURT: Same instruction.

(A recess was taken at 12:29 p.m.)

0581

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

I, Donna M. Kanabay, RMR, CRR, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I just was advised by my office that Judge Baird wants us to be at a hearing tomorrow by telephone. And I’m going to be here and my brother is covering another hearing for me in Tampa. But Judge Baird wants to go forward with the hearing by telephone.

So I would ask that you let me attend that hearing by phone.

THE COURT: What time?

MR. DANDAR: Nine o’clock.

THE COURT: Okay. How long is the hearing expected —

MR. DANDAR: I have no idea.

THE COURT: Well, that is no good. What kind of motion is it?

MR. DANDAR: It was the Flag’s — or RTC’s — actually, Mr. Rosen and Mr. Pope’s motion to strike our pleading challenging the domestication of the Texas judgment against the estate.

THE COURT: So it’s legal —

MR. DANDAR: Right. We had a hearing on that Tuesday at about 5 o’clock before July 4 and we filed a supplemental memorandum of law and they filed a response over the holiday, so I guess we’ll discuss that.

333

THE COURT: You think an hour?

MR. DANDAR: I hope not. I don’t think so. But —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m told not that long. About thirty minutes.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, let’s plan on starting at ten o’clock anyway.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: All right, go ahead, Mr. Dandar.

Mr. Prince indicated he didn’t give us his full explanation, so you can go ahead with that.

MR. DANDAR: Okay, before he does that, could I give him a document that I had the clerk just mark?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, Mr. Prince, go ahead, give us the full explanation of why you have the opinion that Lisa McPherson was dead because of an end cycle order?

A Okay. Lisa McPherson went to the hospital. From — from the records that I can see from the doctor, they didn’t indicate that she was psychotic and needed to be Baker Acted.

Now, we’re talking about terms here that mean different things to different people. In the hospital they define psychosis the way they define it and, thus, Baker Act people. In Scientology, they have a different definition

334

for a person, a psychotic or suffering from psychosis. One of the definitions, reasoning of what psychosis is in Scientology, is in their Case Supervisor Series 22, which has been entered in on the record, I’m sure, many times. And this is concerning psychosis.

Now, it says here —

THE COURT: I don’t know if it has been or not.

I think you’re looking in that one book?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: I’m not sure if that whole book was introduced.

THE WITNESS: No. No. Not the whole book. But this issue here, psychosis, has been an exhibit.

We can put it in again.

THE COURT: I don’t know if it has or not.

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think it has.

THE WITNESS: Okay. Well, when I finish explaining it, I’ll hand it over.

MR. DANDAR: We’ll mark it.

THE COURT: All right.

A It says — down here at the beginning of this issue here on psychosis, it says, “All characteristics classified as those of a suppressive person are, in fact, those of an insane person.”

So, in other words, it is the belief of

335

Scientology that a person who they consider to be suppressive and has those characteristics are also insane people, you see. So we’re working with two different definitions here.

Now, if this person — if Lisa was taken to the hospital and they said okay, she’s not insane, she’s just having problems, she can work it out, she gets to Scientology, she’s insane. They are the ones that classify her as being insane.

Why do they classify her as — well, one of the reasons they classify her as being insane is because she wants to leave. And again that is mentioned here in this book here of people wanting to leave as also being psychotic.

So my thing is this. Lisa McPherson was taken to the Ft. Harrison. Prior to being — to this whole incident with going to the hospital and everything, she made her intentions to the Church known, to her friends, to her family, she wants to leave. In their minds, she’s psychotic. Medically, not necessarily so, she simply doesn’t want to do it anymore.

It has become a matter of PR concern because she had the accident with the boat, you know. She’s left, she’s —

THE COURT: I’m sorry, she had the what?

336

THE WITNESS: The accident with the boat, where she ran into the back of the boat and took off her clothes.

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

A Okay? This is something a person now who again, two months earlier, just testified to being more than human, more than a homo sapiens, this person is a homo novis. This person is almost like a demigod. Now, this person is brought to the Ft. Harrison.

In my mind, my opinion, she came in there, she said, “I want to leave.” She didn’t change her mind. She’s delegated to be psychotic. They want to put her on introspection rundown. She’s incarcerated.

In that book “What Is Scientology,” it gives a definition of introspection rundown and gives a brief summary of introspection rundown that the public people can read.

MR. DANDAR: Let me hand this to the witness, Judge. It is Exhibit 125, just marked by the clerk from “What Is Scientology,” which I believe you have the entire book.

THE COURT: Yes.

A It says “Introspection Rundown. This is a service that helps to preclear, locate and correct things which cause him to have his attention inwardly fixated. He then

337

becomes capable of looking outward so he can see his environment, handle and control it.”

Nothing in here, one, if Scientology labels you psychotic, you are going to be incarcerated until a case supervisor tells you you can leave. There is nothing in here that warns anyone of that.

So Lisa was taken to the Ft. Harrison, deemed to be psychotic, put on the introspection rundown.

Well, when did that come up that we even found out that Lisa was on introspection rundown? After Alain Kartuzinski and other people were given use immunity when they were first saying she’s a hotel guest, now the
investigators want to hear the story, “Oh, she was on introspection rundown.” Okay. So she’s on introspection rundown the second day.

And to me — again, she told them, “I want to leave.” They wouldn’t let her leave. She gets violent. The next day they order the drugs to put her down.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What drugs?

A I think it is chloral hydrate or Valium. Alain Kartuzinski gave some money for Valium. And if you look and see what Scientology says about drugs, psychiatric drugs, all of these things, these things are expressly prohibited.

Now, so far what we’ve seen, we see Scientology’s

338

policy if a person is sick, when you take them to the hospital, make sure — but now we see things happening that — that are outside of that. By their own policy we see things they are not following that. That is a huge no-no.

We are at the place where policy and tech is applied 100 percent correctly standardly in every case, but somehow in this instance we have so many instances where this person — they are not doing it, they are not doing it.

And the reason why, you have to look behind that. And the reason, my contention is, is that she expressly wanted to leave, it escalated to her actually threatening, probably threatening with legal, threatening with law enforcement or whatever. This became a problem.

OSA was there from the very beginning, reporting about this, the very beginning, because this is a legal threat, this is a problem in Scientology.

So maybe they did try an introspection rundown on her. You know, they say they did. Maybe they did. But I think she never agreed to it. I think that she decided she was done with Scientology, no matter what they said to her,
she would no longer agree to it, because by her own word, it was making her sicker.

So instead, because of what happened, when they saw Lisa’s deteriorating condition, in their minds Lisa is

339

on the process. She’s on introspection rundown. Scientology has further policy, the way out is the way through, get the PC through it. What turns it on or turns it off. In their minds, whatever she’s going through is part of the process.

Plus, you have the added fear that if this person isn’t reconciled with Scientology, it’s going to be a big problem.

So instead of taking this girl to the hospital where she should have belonged, where their own policy says to do, and get her medical treatment, when it was obvious, by the reports that I have seen that she was ill, instead of
doing that, no, we’re going to keep doing Scientology because that is what it means by Keeping Scientology Working and, you know, what happens happens. Some of them don’t make it. Too bad.

But the biggest fear for Scientology was to let this girl go, in the state of mind where she was refusing to cooperate with them, caused them more problems than her actual death.

Q How do you get to your conclusion that her death was a result of an end cycle, let her die order from Mr. Miscavige?

A During my tenure in — in RTC, we would have staff meetings that had a pattern to the staff meetings. And the

340

patterns were this. What are the flaps? What are the handling for those flaps? Those are the first things that are discussed and chewed around and taken care of.

Q With whom?

A Amongst the executives and the staff in any particular organization. Any particular Sea Org organization, I should say.

Q At RTC, who were the meetings with that you had?

A Flaps and handling? They would entail myself, Vicki Aznaran, Mark Yaeger, David Miscavige, Lymon Sperlock, Norman Starkey (phonetic), in some instances the executive director in the national if it had to do with stats. But
those were the people that ultimately had to know what was going on.

Now, why is Flag Service Organization so important? Because the Flag Service Organization, when I left here in 1982, made an income of over 2 million a week. So you have an organization here that makes $8 million in a
month. This is — it is the highest income-producing organization within Scientology.

It’s a major concern that everything is perfect at the Flag Service Organization. There is not going to be an instance where no one knows what is going on. So in the staff meetings you talk about flaps and handling.

Well, Lisa is a flap. It’s reported up the lines.

341

OSA is there from the very beginning because she is a legal threat because it is a flap. And they are busy reporting, you know, on the legal side of it and what is going on and the repercussions.

They are also coordinating and in liaison with the technical area that has the technical program that they are trying to get her through, which in their minds is going to cure her.

Everyone knows — I believe there is also testimony on the — during the time period that Lisa was going through this trouble, Mr. Miscavige was there. We would often go to the Flag Service Organization, to inspect it, to make sure it is running properly, to make sure this technology is being applied 100 percent standard.

Q What are you relying on when you say Mr. Miscavige was at the Ft. Harrison Hotel in this time period?

A I believe some — a public person who — I don’t recall the name right now — something that I read mentioned the fact that he was there. And — he was at post.

Q This public Scientologist saw Mr. Miscavige?

A Yes.

Q Was that in the police files of the Clearwater Police files?

A Yes.

Q Okay.

342

A So your largest income-making —

THE COURT: Where is that?

MR. DANDAR: I have it. I’ll introduce it, Judge. In fact, I have it on my computer. I’ll print it out on my next break.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: It is Detective Carrasquillo of the Clearwater Police Department interviewed four, I believe, public Scientologists staying in the cabanas who heard nothing during this time period, who saw Mr. Miscavige —

THE COURT: I just asked him a question. He’s responding to me. I was saying —

MR. DANDAR: It is a four-page document. It’s on my computer. I can print it out.

THE COURT: Okay.

A So, you know, from the limited time that I was there in the Religious Technology Center myself, I know that, you know, there wasn’t much about the Flag Service Organization that I didn’t know about and also had responsibilities for to make sure that the whole thing ran smoothly. And the person that I reported to was certainly the — ultimately was Mr. Miscavige.

343

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay.

A And I am saying here today — and the reason I came to that conclusion — is by their own written policies that they have written here, you start to see violations.

And the reason why is because there was a problem. There was a legal threat. Lisa was not cooperating with them. When I did the introspection rundown on the other girl, she was cooperating. She wasn’t trying to leave. She
was going along with it. She never mentioned that she wanted to leave at any other time. There is a big difference.

So now you have a person that wants to leave, has publicly stated they want to leave to their friends, to their family, to the auditor. That is a no-no.

Q How did you —

A Again, there is reference where a person wants to leave is psychotic. So now they have put this label on her. She’s locked in a room. She’s terrified. Instead of taking her to the hospital when she was sick and letting her get
treatment because of her state of mind and because of the way she felt about Scientology, they opted to just continue the process, and either it works or it doesn’t.

Q Well, Heather Hof, who was a 17-year-old ethics officer, or studying to be an ethics officer, inspection

344

reports, all her records, are missing. She testified in deposition that she hand-delivered her reports to Mr. Kartuzinski, saying as early as December 2, I believe, Lisa McPherson wasn’t eating or drinking enough to survive,
something had to change, Heather was frantic. The —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, objection. He’s just testifying. This isn’t a question. This is just Mr. Dandar summarizing — and I would say missummarizing — what he thinks the testimony has been. It’s not a question. It’s a statement.

THE COURT: Well, I suspect that he’s saying, “Mr. Prince, if this is her testimony.” That is what you do with an expert sometimes. So if that is what he’s doing, I’ll allow it, I guess, with the question.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So I’m assuming I’m accurate in my recollection of what Heather Hof testified to the police, as well as her deposition in this case, and the pathologist retained by the estate, that Lisa was in a coma that she could be shaken out of but she would go back into, five days — the last five days of her life. And in reading — in what you know and reading what you just told us you read, why is it your opinion that they would just simply let her die rather than take her to the hospital?

345

A Because she was not settled with her relationship with Scientology. And this would have caused tremendous problems for them. If they would have taken her — you know, even during the period of time when she was going in and out of the coma and say she goes to the hospital now, she starts getting treatment, she’s getting better, you know, Scientologists come around, she now tells the doctors, “No, I don’t want to see them anymore, I have to get away from this.”

Q Mr. Prince, I guess the crux of the matter is you — you put together an affidavit that is dated August of 1999. Do you recall that?

A Yes, I do.

Q Where you talk about the role of David Miscavige and Mr. Mithoff and Marty Rathbun and your prior history in RTC. Do you remember that?

A Yes. I do.

Q And in that affidavit you have come to the conclusion that the three of them just decided to sit around and not do anything about it and end cycle Lisa McPherson?

A Yes. If she dies, she dies. If she gets better, she gets better.

Q Now, did I help you write that affidavit?

A Not at all. This affidavit came about because — from studying all of the evidence. And I spent months

346

studying this to come to this conclusion. This conclusion I came to was my personal opinion, I stated it as such, based on the experience I have within that organization.

And the thing that — that became alarming to me to even point me in this direction is the amount of information that is missing, the amount of things that — that isn’t there that would clearly show like what her state of mind was based on what she was saying. All of that is missing. Which means cover-up. Which means something is hidden. Why is something hidden?

In my mind, similar to what happened in Wollersheim. This is information, if gotten out, could be harmful or damaging to Scientology. And Scientology, the survival of Scientology, is first and foremost in the mind of any Scientologist, even beyond their own lives.

Q Did Stacy Brooks put you in the mood to write this affidavit? Did she kind of persuade you to write this affidavit?

A No. Put me in the mood? I guess I didn’t understand.

Q Okay. Did she influence you in any way whatsoever to get you to write this affidavit where you conclude that Mr. Miscavige and others had decided to issue the end cycle order?

A No. Matter of fact, Stacy disagreed with my

347

opinion about that. She disagreed with it. But — and we’ve had discussions about this.

I mean, you know, I did it outside of her. Stacy was nowhere around when I did my affidavit. And she asked me why I came to that conclusion. I mean, we’ve had in-depth conversations about that, because Stacy was not in the position I was in to be able to make that determination.

Q Did anybody — let’s even go to Bob Minton. Did Bob Minton suggest to you, order you, tell you in any way, shape or form what to put in that affidavit?

A No. Bob Minton was so disrelated from anything that I was doing in this case.

Q Really? How so? I mean, wasn’t involved at all?

A Bob Minton never cared about the particulars that was going on in this Lisa McPherson case. He never concerned himself with that.

His words to me were, “I have hired Ken. He’s got the money. He’s the best one that — the best lawyer I could think of to do it. It’s his job. It’s his responsibility.”

Q Did Bob Minton say he hired me, Ken Dandar?

A No. No. He just said you were the attorney of record. He trusted you. You could —

Q Did you ever hear Bob Minton say to you, or to me in your presence, that — ordering me to charge David

348

Miscavige with — in the civil case with murder?

A Absolutely not.

Q Did anyone — maybe I haven’t mentioned the right name, I don’t know. Let’s just cover the whole waterfront.

Is there anyone that gave you direction or influenced you in any way on how to write that affidavit and what conclusions you reached in that affidavit?

A None at all. No one.

Q Now, the only other end cycle orders you have seen when you were in RTC, did they only have to do with people who had a terminal illness?

A That is correct.

Q Did you ever come across another circumstance like Lisa McPherson where an end cycle order was given and the person did not have a known, medically diagnosed by a licensed medical doctor, terminal illness?

A No. With the exception of what I told you about John Nelson, of course.

MR. DANDAR: All right. Judge, just in case it is not present, I just want to go ahead and I marked this affidavit that we’ve been talking about as Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number 126. And I’m sure you have so many copies of this already.

THE COURT: Is this the one that is 108?

MR. DANDAR: No. That is the PC folder one,

349

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

MR. DANDAR: This is the one that talks about end cycle.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: This is what Paragraph 34 of the fifth amended complaint is dependent upon. I would like to move 126 into evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: It is already in evidence, but —

THE COURT: Yes, it is in, but we’ll let it in again.

MR. DANDAR: Somewhere. I’m not sure where.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, do you recall seeing, in the deposition testimony of Judy Goldsberry-Webber and Dr. Houghton and Kartuzinski, that liquid injectable Valium was picked up twice, two separate times, at two different places for Lisa McPherson?

A Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: I object. This just isn’t proper. Do you recall seeing somebody else’s testimony? I mean, we should be asking Mr. Prince about his testimony, whatever it is, not what he recalls somebody else’s has testified to.

350

THE COURT: Well, if he read — just remember, Mr. Prince was his consultant. If he read some of these depositions in some fashion to assist him with his testimony, I mean, I already heard him talking about Valium which he thought —

MR. WEINBERG: Which was never given to Ms. Lisa McPherson.

THE COURT: Well, I know that. But we want to listen to what it is he says.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: I know that. And I know Kartuzinski was the one who said, “No, we don’t use Valium.” So, I mean, I know this case a little differently from what Mr. Prince does. But I haven’t been to all of the depositions and I haven’t read all of the depositions. But I know what I know from this hearing.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: And that is that Dr. whatever his name is prescribed the Valium.

MR. DANDAR: Minkoff.

THE COURT: And Kartuzinski said no. That is all I know.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, can you tell us how it is that the

351

organization works where if Dr. Minkoff, as he testified, ordered injectable Valium twice for Lisa McPherson, how would the org go about procuring that Valium from a public drug store?

A Well, you would have to use — you know, Scientology in itself is a closed system to that degree because it does disagree — seemingly disagrees with psychiatric medicines, the use of psychiatric medicines.

However, in — in the case of introspection and a person that is psychotic, there are references of using drugs to treat those people.

But Scientology would only go to another Scientologist who would have that same understanding that would provide what they needed because they are kind of like on the same track. I have never seen it work where a doctor outside of Scientology would do that.

Q Well, how does the organization work to go about getting the money approved to push the prescriptions?

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I’m sorry to interrupt. But he’s asking how Flag would have gotten the money in 1995 or whenever it was. He wasn’t there. He wouldn’t know that.

THE COURT: Well, he can testify as to what he knew when he was there.

MR. WEINBERG: In 1982? I mean, it’s just —

352

okay.

THE COURT: I mean, he — this is what he based his opinion on. If it had to do with 1982 we just have to take that into consideration.

A Well, there is a simple answer to the question because it’s a Scientology policy, it’s called CSW, completed staff work. Whenever the organization is expected to — is expected to finance or pay for something, a document is submitted that — to the person senior and financial persons within Scientology that explains what the situation is, what the handling of it is.

If the situation is a person is psychotic and — you know, and in need of drugs, according to this reference, and handling is to buy the drugs, and then this is okay and they sign it and that gets passed along, the drugs are purchased.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So it gets passed along to who?

A If it was an emergency CSW, which would be accompanied with a purchase order, if it is an emergency CSW with an accompanying purchase order, it would normally go from the person who originated the CSW, to his immediate senior, to the commanding officer or whoever that person designated to be in authority to instantly approve moneys expended by the organization.

353

Q And have you seen a CSW for any of the prescription drugs purchased for Lisa McPherson?

A No, I have not.

THE COURT: What was the CSW again?

THE WITNESS: Completed staff work.

THE COURT: Thank you.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q If — if the pathologist retained by the state who say that she’s in a coma, it was obvious for five days that she wasn’t getting any better, she was getting worse, if Heather Hof, in my recollection of what she said, is correct
that she was — Lisa was getting worse as early as December 2, if that is all true, is there any other explanation that you can think of that would explain why nothing was done sooner for Lisa McPherson?

MR. WEINBERG: I object to the form of the question, your Honor, as a completely improper hypothetical.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A You know, again, I have studied for 16 years these issues, this stuff with red writing, this stuff with black writing, called staff writing; the only — this is the way I opine this way, the only reason she would have been treated
this way is because she was a threat to Scientology.

And Scientology has a principle called the

354

greatest good for the greatest number of the dynamics. The dynamics being the different areas of life that L. Ron Hubbard codified or, you know, decided this is the way it was.

In Scientology, the overriding principle is to protect Scientology. That is the greatest good. For her to go in a bad condition to the hospital, complain of what Scientology did to her, to create bad publicity for them, possible lawsuits, possible investigation by law enforcement because she was incarcerated, held against her will, was not anything anyone wanted to deal with.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How could letting someone die be less of a PR flap than taking them to the hospital while they are alive?

A Well, I think it is an empirical fact, because it wasn’t — it was virtually unheard of until a year after her death. When you do enough cover-up — I mean, you know, not until a year after her death was it even known what happened to her. So it worked for a while.

Q Okay. Let’s go to —

THE COURT: I have just got to ask a question there. And I had so many but I didn’t want to interrupt Mr. Prince.

She went straight to the medical examiner. Right? I mean, from the hospital to the medical

355

examiner?

THE WITNESS: Right, with meningitis.

THE COURT: Well, whatever. There is a medical examiner who is the one that determines cause of death in this city.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: If she had been stabbed, if she had been dehydrated, if she had been shot, whatever it is, you take a dead body to the medical examiner when they are not under a doctor’s care for the medical examiner to say what is the cause of death.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: I don’t know how long it took her to do her work. But the deal was as far as the Church would be concerned, she was delivered to the medical examiner to determine cause of death. Right?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So any delay was occasioned apparently by some difficulty in determining what was the cause of death. And some disagreements in sending off lab tests and all that sort of stuff. Right?

356

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. So — so as far as the Church is concerned, Dr. Wood or whoever was going to do the autopsy might have known what they saw in two days.

THE WITNESS: Well, I don’t believe —

THE COURT: I mean, they have no way of knowing that, that they couldn’t just cut her open, look, say, “Whoops, there is a blood clot, this was caused by dehydration.”

THE WITNESS: Well, wasn’t it after the criminal case got started that Mrs. Wood went on national TV and spoke about dehydration and all of these things? Wasn’t that —

THE COURT: It may have been. But the fact of the matter was, is within a matter of however soon they got to this body, depending on how many bodies they had —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — somebody did an autopsy, you know, did an autopsy.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Dictated findings, and eventually this was put into an autopsy report. And Dr. Wood apparently did go on nationwide TV at some point in

357

time later.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: But, I mean, it still goes without saying that there would be no way for the Church to know what was going to go on at the medical examiner’s office.

I mean, gosh, they could have said she was stabbed. They may have been wrong. But there is no way of knowing, when a body is taken under unusual circumstances, anybody not under a doctor’s care, where a doctor signs off, like in a — in a — and a medical examination is done, an autopsy is done, there would be no way for the Church to know what the ultimate result was going to be.

Why, look at all of the flap now about the different autopsy reports and what have you.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Right?

THE WITNESS: I agree with you wholeheartedly.

THE COURT: So this has been my problem all along is that you talk about a bad public relations flap.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Well, a death, for heaven sakes, brings about a lot worse public relation than

358

somebody who goes to the hospital and says, “I was kept there, I didn’t want to stay and they brought me here but I want to go home and I don’t want to be here” and some charges are brought because of that.

THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor —

THE COURT: Which they can defend on the way by saying this was a religious — she was a member of the Church, this was the way we handled this. That would have been the defense.

THE WITNESS: Right. And I — and I beg to differ with you on the fact that it was more convenient to take her to the hospital as opposed to take a dead body there.

THE COURT: I didn’t say convenient. I said it would be a — it was a worse public relations flap to have had Lisa McPherson die at the hotel under the care of the Church of Scientology than it would have been for Lisa McPherson to have gotten well in the hospital, having been taken there by the Church of Scientology and had her say, “They held me there and I wanted to leave and they wouldn’t let me leave.” That would have created less of a public relations flap.

THE WITNESS: I beg to differ, your Honor. And the reason I beg to differ is again, like I say,

359

this person has just attested to being almost superhuman. This person has been in the community here in Clearwater. She worked on public relations, on behalf of the Flag Service Organization, setting up the Christmas dealies. She was part of the OT committee whose responsibility is to interface Scientology with the community. Lisa was not a low-profile, no-nothing nobody-person.

THE COURT: I understand that. But here we are, we are in this hearing, it is the seventh week of this hearing. This case has been going on seven years. There has been no good publicity that has come out of it, presumably, for the Church of Scientology.

All this would have been avoided if they had taken her to a hospital if it had been something that they would have known, they took her to a hospital, and had she said, you know, “Those folks were holding me against my will,” and they just said, “No, she was there on introspection rundown,” that would have been litigated, long over.

Do you think, in the long run, it would have been less of a public relations flap?

THE WITNESS: Let’s take another perspective of it. If it had gone along as Scientology planned, if

360

my contention there was a cover-up and they were successfully able to cover up and this girl simply died of embolism, well, who cares? Okay, well, so, you know, another dead person.

But if this person came and said, “Hey, look, I have been in here, they have held me, these people have jumped on me, forced drugs down my throat, they shoot me up with needles,” you know, I know that — that they said they never used Valium. I’m sorry, I disagree. I have been through these introspection rundowns. The instant they give that stuff — they give it to the person because they can’t sleep.

Otherwise, they are up all night. What they call it is a free will or the person simply cannot sleep so they are giving her drugs to make them sleep. Why would you get the same drug two times and not use it?

THE COURT: A person that can’t sleep is the person that is psychotic in a very hyperactive state. Right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: So, consequently, you would concede that Lisa McPherson was, in fact, in a very psychotic state or she could have slept just fine.

THE WITNESS: Something caused her not to

361

sleep.

THE COURT: Right. Which, of course, if she was in a psychotic state — now we are back to that situation where it would have been fairly dangerous for them to let her walk out the door, which —

THE WITNESS: You know, as far as her being psychotic, your Honor, I feel we can only speculate about that, because she was never taken to a doctor and diagnosed as being psychotic when they say she was psychotic.

THE COURT: Then she wouldn’t have needed Valium to make her sleep, would she?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: I mean, you can’t have it both ways.

THE WITNESS: Well, you know, your Honor, I’ll be quite honest with you. Before I came in here —

I’m tired now because I wasn’t able to sleep that well, and I’m sure this will go on until I’m finished. So I don’t know, six to one, half dozen of another to me.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you ever in your experience seen drugs like Valium or chloral hydrate given to a Scientologist so they

362

don’t leave?

MR. WEINBERG: Can we limit it to one or the other?

A No, I have not.

THE COURT: So you have never seen Valium given to a Scientologist?

THE WITNESS: Because they want to leave?

THE COURT: Because they want to leave?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Because they were sick?

THE WITNESS: Because they were —

THE COURT: Psychotic?

THE WITNESS: Yes, ma’am.

THE COURT: When was that?

THE WITNESS: Again, this girl, Terese —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Teresita?

A Teresita. Again, she, you know, literally fell off the chair and started doing her thing. And I think one day passed and she wasn’t sleeping, and immediately Dr. Dink was contacted. You could literally see her dying in front of your face. She was just burning up. It was one of the most amazing things to see, kind of like the person caves in on themselves, they just kind of fall in, you know.

And this started happening to her after she hadn’t

363

slept for two and a half, three days. And she came out and she was given an injection.

Q Did you —

THE COURT: Was it Valium? That is the question.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I couldn’t speak truthfully as to what the injection was because the doctor was there, he injected her, and I know that within an hour, hour and a half, she was asleep.

THE COURT: So in truth now, Mr. Prince, you can’t testify in this courtroom that you ever saw Valium given to someone because they either wanted to leave or because they were psychotic; you don’t know what the psychotic person was given?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, did you have to assist Teresita in eating and drinking?

A Yes, I did.

Q How did you do that?

A I would just gently talk to her and tell her that it is important for her to eat if she wants to get well. I would tell her the case supervisor has said you have to drink X amount a day. Would you please do it? Just trying

364

to get her cooperation.

Q Could she do it by herself?

A No.

Q So how did you do it?

A Oh, I thought you asked me would she do it by herself.

Q Right. Did she pick up the water and drink it by herself?

A Yes.

Q And the food, did she eat it by herself?

A Sometimes I had to take a spoon and put it to her mouth and watch her chew, you know, and, “Did you eat it all,” you know. That kind of thing.

Q All right. Your opinion that Lisa McPherson died because of an end cycle order, an order just not to do anything for her —

A Correct.

Q — is that opinion based upon because you hate Scientology? Or is it based upon something else?

A For one thing, I certainly do not hate Scientology. I don’t hate anyone or anything.

My opinion is based solely on personal observation, personal experience. I give it as an opinion. I say why. Maybe I haven’t said it as clearly as I need to, but it is so important for Scientology. And, you know,

365

especially Clearwater is considered a hostile environment.

I mean, I have been here when half the city of Clearwater were picketing around the Ft. Harrison with Michael Flynn.

I mean, I have seen and been involved in trying to make this a place where Scientology could comfortably be and the environment would be comfortable with Scientology.

So, no, I don’t hate Scientology. I was a Scientologist myself for sixteen years. You know, I had a firm belief in what I was doing. I have since become disillusioned with a lot of that. But my motive certainly isn’t hate.

Q Now, Mr. Prince, there came a time when the Lisa McPherson Trust was formed. Do you recall that?

A Yes, I do.

Q And after you finished working for me full-time, you went to work for them full-time. Correct?

A Yes.

THE COURT: You know, on some of these things you really are going to have to stop leading him.

That is one of the issues that is an issue here. So don’t ask him a question and then say “Correct?”

MR. DANDAR: Okay. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, were you ever with Bob Minton when he talked about giving money to me for the case?

366

A I have been with Mr. Minton a couple of times, yes. Two or three. Yes.

Q I want to direct your attention to May of 2000.

A Okay.

Q All right?

A Yes.

Q Do you recall any incident where Mr. Minton talked to you about giving money to me?

A Around that exact time period, Mr. Minton made it known to me that you needed more money to bring this case to trial. He had thought in his mind that he had given enough money already and, you know, it could have went to trial or whatever.

But he was concerned about the repeated motion and — motions and on and on, just the cost of the case from the filings and things, that he asked me to go over there and look into, well, what is coming up now, I mean, what can we look forward to now?

I think at that time you were working on an accident reconstruction. And Mr. Garko was talking about doing a jury pool survey or something. And these were going to be additional expenses that would be needed, you know, as
well as whatever else came up to take the trial — take this case to trial.

And I remember going back and speaking to him about that. And he wasn’t very happy about that. And then

367

he — he — he went away — he came into town. Mrs. Brooks and I were working at the LMT. And he came and he said, “Come here, you guys come out here,” because he had a fear that the building that we were in was electronically bugged.

And we got in Stacy’s car and we went into the city parking lot, which is directly across the street from the LMT Trust. Went to the very top where we could see.

And he said, “Look, I’m going to tell you guys, you can’t tell anybody this, Ken Dandar has more money, he doesn’t know where it came from. It came from Europe. You know, I told him, this is as much as I think I can get, I
hope this takes you to trial.”

That was in 2000. He told us that, you know, he didn’t want the office to know, you know, Ken didn’t want everybody in the office to know or whatever, but this $500,000 came. And — and, you know, everything with the case would be okay, basically, was the one instance.

The second instance was very recently, I guess in March of 2002 —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, before he gets to the second incident, that happened when, the first incident?

THE WITNESS: May of 2000.

MR. WEINBERG: May of 2000?

368

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did he say where this $500,000 came from?

A Europe. People from Europe.

Q Did he say to you it was his money?

A No. He said he had arranged from some people from Europe who made this money available.

Q Did you ever see that check?

A No.

Q Okay.

A Then the second instance was recently in March of 2002. He told me that, “Ken needs more money to finish this case and get this case to trial. You know, I’m willing to arrange to get him some money, but I have a problem with some people on the Internet saying bad things about him.

Could you ask Ken if there is any way if he has influence over these people to tell them to stop. And if you do, I’ll see if we can arrange to get him some more money.”

Q So what did you do?

A So I went and had that meeting. I went over to your office and I met with you. And I said, “You know, Bob thinks that he can get more money for you but he’s concerned about this matter. And what are you doing with that? Are you connected with these people, or are you — you know, are you encouraging them to do this?” You know, we had a bit of a conversation.

369

And, Mmm, you said you knew nothing about it and had no control over those people whatsoever but, you know, you would do what you could to make it stop if that is what he was worried about, but it wasn’t anything you were actively concerned in.

Q Do you know anything about the check I got after that?

A Mmm, I know at some point that you had gotten a check. And he called me and let me know that you had.

Q He did?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Did he say where that check came from?

A He did not.

Q Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: And the date of that — the date of the conversation with Mr. Dandar was, you said, March?

THE WITNESS: Of 2002. Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Was this before, or after, I flew to Mr. Minton’s house?

A Before.

Q Okay. If I flew to Mr. Minton’s house February 22 of 2002, when would this conversation be that you and I had?

A So I think maybe a week prior.

370

Q Okay. Were you aware that Mr. Minton —

THE COURT: So you are saying that was February of 2002?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Excuse me, your Honor, what was February of 2000?

THE COURT: 2002. This is when Mr. Dandar and this witness had a conversation.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Oh. Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, I jumped — when you talked about that meeting, that kind of threw me off because that is two years after where I wanted to talk to you about. So let’s go back.

Do you know a fellow by the name of Patrick Jost?

A Yes. I do.

Q Okay. How do you know him?

A I know him because he was hired by Mrs. Brooks to specifically assist Mr. Minton to deal with allegations that were being stirred up by Scientology investigators in Nigeria and Switzerland.

Q What was he supposed to do?

A Mmm, Patrick Jost is multilingual. I think he speaks maybe four or five languages. Mmm, he’s also a person — ex-CIA, spent many years in Europe on behalf of

371

the United States defense.

So he knew a lot of people and had a lot of contacts.

And he was supposed to go and find out where the trouble was originating from and try to deal with it accordingly.

Q Do you know if he was successful in doing that?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, hearsay, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: This whole thing is hearsay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you — can you describe for us the demeanor of Mr. Minton throughout the years — almost two years that the Lisa McPherson Trust concerning the — what he perceived to be actions taken against him by Scientology?

MR. BATTAGLIA: I’ll object to that as being far too broad, demeanor over a period of two years.

THE COURT: Mr. Battaglia, much as I would like to let you object, I don’t think you have any standing to object in this hearing. This is a hearing between these two people. Your client is simply a witness. So I’ll simply ignore that.

MR. WEINBERG: You beat me to my feet because I was about to say the same thing.

MR. FUGATE: Stereo.

MR. WEINBERG: That is like asking for — I

372

don’t know how you ask a question like that. His demeanor over two years?

THE COURT: I agree with that. It was a little broad.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did Mr. Minton ever talk to you about what he felt concerning the Scientology investigation of him?

A Many times, to answer the question. And it wasn’t even the fact that investigations were happening. It’s the false information. The false information that was being provided to government officials in different countries, unfounded allegations that were being provided, that disturbed him more.

And over time it became increasingly more evident that this was having more and more of an effect on him.

Q How did you pick that up?

A When I first met Mr. Minton, he was probably about 40 pounds lighter than he currently is. Just the nicest, gentlest, kindest person. I mean, I had never seen a person like him before. I mean, literally, who am I? Nobody.

But a person like that to come around in your life that just was — I don’t know — genuinely concerned about other people to the point of almost fault. And very — very kind. Very intelligent person.

I seen him go from that, to — to kind of being a

373

person that is annoyed — kind of annoyed by what is going on, kind of — Mmm — annoyed with, you know, what is happening with his kids, you know, what is happening with his house, his phone lines, on and on.

Then I seen him go to a person that actually became very doubtful about what he was involved in, what he was doing. He seemed to be less confident as time went on that he would be able to do anything to restrain Scientology from exercising some of its practices that are detrimental to the general public at large.

Q Have you — are you familiar with the doctrine of Scientology called fair game?

A For sure.

Q Has fair game been canceled?

A No. It’s alive and well.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s what? I couldn’t hear.

THE COURT: Alive and well.

THE WITNESS: Alive and well.

MR. WEINBERG: And that is based on your —

THE COURT: Counsel, we’re going to let you ask that question later.

MR. WEINBERG: I will. I’ll withdraw it. I’m sorry.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Based on your expertise and experience in

374

Scientology, did you personally observe any fair game practiced on Mr. Minton?

A Yes. I have.

Q Can you give us some examples?

A Mmm, leaflets passed around in Boston where his wife and children live, saying that he’s an adulterous, robbed the Nigerian children — the Nigerian people of moneys, this is a starving country. And — and kind of — he’s kind of somehow aligned with the KKK because he was attacking Scientology. Mmm, his children being followed around. You know, the whole Nigeria/Switzerland thing.

They used to meet him at every airport he went to, irrespective of any city, they would just show up and meet him and picket him at the airport. I have been with him when the police literally have to stand in the airport and hold Scientologists back from attacking him.

I have been with him in Boston where somehow Scientology OSA people had gotten a hold of his — his — his records, his counseling records when he was seeing a psychiatrist. And they started saying things to him that he said to his therapist, I know, that upset him extremely that it could even happen.

And the fact of the matter is that therapist decided to no longer see Mr. Minton after Mr. Minton went

375

back and told him, “Hey, why are these guys saying this to me?”

Q This was a psychiatrist?

A Yes.

Q Of Mr. Minton’s?

A Yes.

Q So —

A And —

Q — he refused to see him after the records were made public?

A Correct. Or exposed. His position was exposed.

Q Okay. Did there come a point in time when Mr. Minton, in your presence, was — had any dramatic change in his emotions compared to the years that you have known him?

A Again, you know, what I said earlier. For sure, he changed. He became more of a somber person. He wasn’t as cheerful anymore. He was more serious.

And at some point it even got into, “Well, you know, they did this to me so I’m going to go picket them. They did this to me so I’m going to go picket.”

You know, this is — was kind of like his last line of defense, as I testified the first day I came here, that he could possibly do, you know. “I’m just going to go picket. When they fool with my wife, I’m going to picket.

376

When they fool with my children, I’m going to picket. What they are doing over in Nigeria, doing all this crap, I’m going to go picket.”

So he became increasingly despondent about that. And, you know, Mr. Minton takes medication. Not that there is anything wrong with medication, but sometimes he wouldn’t take it. You know, he seemed to just be extremely stressed.

And during the time periods when he didn’t take his medication, he would literally be in a state of collapse with just — crying uncontrollably and totally despondent.

I remember one time he told me he was going to kill himself. He was walking around in the woods with a gun, you know. 200 acres up there where he lives and it is nothing but beautiful woods in New England and he’s walking around with a gun. He drove his car in the woods, got it caught on a tree stump and he’s out there in the middle of the night, with a gun, crying. You know, that has happened.

Q When did that happen, that particular incident?

A That was in the fall of 2001, I believe.

Q Okay. Do you have any knowledge concerning Stacy Brooks’ desire, in the summer of 2001, to go see Dell Liebreich to get her to drop the case?

A Yes. I do.

Q What is your knowledge?

A Mmm, Scientology had very effectively convinced

377

the courts — and I’m not trying to cast any aspersions here — tried to convince the court that somehow the Lisa McPherson Trust had something to do with this Lisa McPherson case.

And this assertion, this stuff that had grew over the years, inextricably tied these two things together, which allowed a way to now do continuing discovery on Mr. Minton and Mrs. Brooks and other staff members that worked at the trust.

And this was something that he was very concerned about, because financially it was ruining the Lisa McPherson Trust to have a lawyer have to represent all of the staff members, you know, when they get deposed, and they’re away, and on and on and on. So —

Q Did there come a time when — well, let’s go back to the question.

Did there come a time when you had knowledge about Stacy Brooks wanting to go to Dell Liebreich?

A Yes. So because of that, you know, and there was more discovery by Scientology specifically on Mr. Minton’s finances, they were just narrowing down on that, which is pursuant to their policy here to cut off the funds, on and on and on. They are on a systematic program.

One thing that can be said about Scientologists, they are extremely organized and they have resources to do

378

what they need to do.

So Stacy thought that, you know, a lot of stress was coming because of this. So she thought, well, the only reason this is happening is because of this wrongful death case. So she decided to go visit with Dell Liebreich and ask her to drop the case because of what was happening with Bob Minton. And she decided to do this without Mr. Minton knowing about it.

And she consulted me on it and asked me, “Do you think he will be extremely upset if I do this?”

And I told her that I thought he would be extremely upset, you know, without talking to you about it and just go down there because there was no relationship.

Stacy had no relationship with Dell Liebreich. So for her to now — now come out of the blue and ask her to drop the case, it would be like a woodpecker coming along, telling me to pay my house rent or something, something as bizarre as that. So, you know, Stacy decided she was going to do it anyway.

She finally asked Bob Minton. And he said, “No, you don’t do it. You don’t do that.” She decided to do it anyway. She attempted to have a phone conversation with Mrs. Liebreich. And I think at that point, after Mrs. Liebreich spoke with Stacy, she then spoke with you and refused to speak with Stacy anymore.

379

Q Are you aware of any instance where Bob Minton controlled the wrongful death case?

A Not at all. The wrongful death case was the last thing that Mr. Minton was interested in because he had turned it over to you, he felt you were a competent, honest attorney, and, you know, many arguments have happened between Mrs. Brooks and Mr. Minton concerning the fact that she did not need to be involved in the case, or if there was a differing of opinion, to do what you say because you are the lawyer.

And, no, he — he — he never — Bob Minton was more concerned about what was going on at the Lisa McPherson Trust.There was a period of time, after we came into existence and actually established a phone number, that people just started calling like crazy. “Hey, can you help me with this? Can you help me with this? Can you tell me what is going on with my brother? He doesn’t speak to me anymore. Can you tell us what it means to be an SP? I need to get my money back from Scientology that I haven’t used because I have no life, I don’t have a place to live.” You know, all of these kind of phone calls. And we — we became extremely interested because after the trust was set up, it gave you a broad cross section of, well, what types of things do people need help

380

with in relationship to Scientology?

So our job became, well, there is nothing we can do about it. If there is a criminal activity concerned, if there is any fraud that is concerned or bad business practices, at that point we started referring people to the responsible governmental agencies.

If you have a problem with them returning your repayment money, you refer them to the Consumer Fraud Department — Department of Agriculture, Consumer Fraud. If it is bad business practices, the Better Business Bureau. If it has something to do with money — the IRS could possibly be a person to contact if they are not getting satisfaction with known policies on giving money back. This kind of thing.

And we had nothing whatsoever — and the whole reason I stopped working in your office is that we had gone through deposing the majority of the Scientologists and Scientology witnesses. And you were going on to your medical experts. So there was no reason for me — I mean, I didn’t need to sit and listen to a medical expert being deposed.

So I worked at the trust. And this is kind of what we were doing. It was kind of like when you went off doing your medical people, we just forgot about the case.

At least, I did.

381

Q So you actually did work at the trust in answering calls for people who needed counseling?

A Very much so.

Q You weren’t just waiting for the trial of the Lisa McPherson case to start?

A This trial — you know, as much as I’m willing to offer my services — help point out certain things, what happened with Mrs. McPherson was a very unfortunate thing but there are still a lot of people alive that needed help.

And that is where I went to — what I wanted to do.

Q What was my involvement with the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A Occasionally stop by to have dinner.

Occasionally, like maybe I think I maybe seen you there two times during its entire existence, maybe three.

Q Did I give any orders to anyone at the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A Not that I ever saw. It would be highly unusual if that happened.

Q Did I direct any of the picketing?

A No.

Q Do you know if I ever participated in a picket?

A No. You know, I was sitting here listening to testimony about that, and I listened with a sharp ear as Judge Schaeffer here mentioned the fact that you shouldn’t

382

have been anywhere near picketing. And I think what may be kind of misunderstood here is the fact that the vigil is not — was not and never has been a picketing experience. The vigil is where the people come from all over, they light the candles, they — they do some Bible stuff, they sing hymns and they may place a wreath where she died at the cabana. That is not a picketing experience.

And that is where I have seen you with the vigils, along with the family. And you were there because the family was there.

Q Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I have an objection.

In light of Mr. Prince’s last statement, he said he understood you had said certain things during the hearing? How would he know that if he was to be excluded?

THE COURT: I am sure he read transcripts.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, but it is —

THE COURT: It would have been what he read or somebody told him, which would be inappropriate, too.

A I think it came up on the first day when I sat here in the courtroom giving testimony where you admonished Ken and pointed that out. I heard that direction from this

383

seat.

THE COURT: I’m not excluding you from testifying if you read something or heard something.

THE WITNESS: Well, I’m just saying that is not the case. I heard it right here in this seat on the first day I was here.

THE COURT: You have to understand to the — to the rest of the world, if candles are being carried, signs are being carried, it is being done, the Church of Scientology — it may look and seem like a picket. A lot of folks have talked about it as being a picket.

THE WITNESS: Right. But at the vigil there are no signs, though.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, did you ever hear Mr. Minton talk about the money that he gave me as — giving it to me or giving it to the estate? Did you ever hear him talk about that?

A I have. And what Mr. Minton has always said to me is he is giving this money to Ken to use on the case at his discretion. He’s loaning the money to Ken. That is what I heard.

Q Did you ever hear Mr. Minton write or speak about the LMT or Mr. Minton getting the bulk of any of the money

384

that may be realized from the wrongful death case?

A The only time I heard that statement made was when Mr. Minton came back from a radio interview. And he was laughing. And he said, “Hey, you know what, I just went in there and said the bulk of the proceeds are going to go to an anti-cult group or whatever. And I know this is going to chap Scientology’s behind.” He was into that kind of tit for tat kind of thing.

Q Did you ever hear him talk about it in private or outside of the media’s presence?

A Well, you know, the particular time that I’m talking about was private, you know. And I — you know, I made the comment, “Really, you know, is that the way it’s going to go?”

He said, “Look, I’ll probably never see a dime from this stuff. I just said it.”

Q Okay. Did there come a point in time when Mr. Minton started to express concern over the discovery by Scientology of a UBS check?

A What I recall about that, and I mentioned or made reference to it in the affidavit that I did, I guess the last one that I did, the April 2002.

He called me just in grief, crying. He’s like, “It’s over. They got me. You know, I’m going to jail.”

He’s just —

385

THE COURT: Can we have a date on this? You want your last affidavit? I think it was in there.

THE WITNESS: Yes, it would probably be a week prior to the meeting that happened on March 28th. So we’re talking like maybe March 21st or something like that. You know, the week prior to going to New York.

THE COURT: No. I know it is in evidence somewhere. If I need to see it, I’ll ask to see a copy of it.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

A So, you know, I immediately called Mrs. Brooks and —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, let’s back up.

Bob Minton called you up, crying, saying, “It is all over.” What else?

A He said that, Mmm, “I’m going to jail. I have been told I’m going to jail. They’re coming after Therese and the kids.”

And he was just completely despondent about that.

386

Q And this was before the New York City meetings?

A Yeah.

Q Okay.

A Yeah. So then —

Q But he didn’t go into detail as to why he thought he was going to jail?

A No, he wouldn’t tell me then. I wanted to know, what is his new thing? What in the heck happened? What new thing has happened? He wouldn’t tell me.

Q Okay.

A Stacy, I called her to try to get additional information. She didn’t know what the heck had happened. But she knew she had to go up there. So she went up there that day.

Q To New Hampshire?

A Yes, to New Hampshire. Subsequent days, I got an idea of what happened. And it had no significance to me, I had no idea that this was a significant incident.

But he told me that Mike Rinder had somehow gotten a copy of a check, of the $500,000 check, and told him that he knew that Bob Minton lied in deposition about this $500,000 check and they had the proof and they were going to prosecute him on it.

Q Did Mr. Minton say he, Mr. Minton, also had a copy of this UBS check?

387

A No. He said he didn’t know how they got a copy because he can’t get a copy of it. He said, “I tried. I can’t get a copy of it.” Somehow, they come up with a copy and show him.

And he was just beside himself.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could I ask, could we point out in this affidavit where this incident is that he’s just described?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Because I don’t think it’s in there. They are saying something about a $500,000 check prior to the New York meetings.

THE COURT: You have your affidavit there in front of you?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I do.

THE COURT: See if it is in the affidavit, or if it is something not in your affidavit.

THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay, so here, if you turn to Page 3 of the affidavit, I started talking about what I’m explaining right now on the 20th of March, 2002.

THE COURT: What is this number?

MR. DANDAR: Paragraph 9.

THE WITNESS: Paragraph Number 9.

THE COURT: I don’t have it. Maybe I do need

388

it. What is the number of the exhibit and I’ll have the clerk get it?

MR. FUGATE: I believe it is attached to Mr. Dandar’s response to our memorandum of fact and law. I believe that is where it is.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. FUGATE: Can I give you a copy?

THE COURT: Yes, please. If you would, that would be great. I’ll give this back to you because I know it is in evidence or in the pleadings.

MR. FUGATE: It is in the pleadings, I believe, Judge.

MR. DANDAR: He’s reading from Paragraph 9 on Page 3.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Am I right?

A Yes. But, you know — yes, that was on Page 3, Number 9, during the time period, what I’m talking about
here.

And before I wrote this affidavit on the attachment, when I met with Mr. Dandar, I wrote on the first page that — that Scientology had gathered enough information about Bob Minton to get him prosecuted, convicted and jailed.

MR. DANDAR: He’s looking at his handwritten

389

attachment.

THE COURT: Oh, okay.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: The first page, the first paragraph.

THE WITNESS: Did I answer the question?

MR. WEINBERG: I asked you — I asked you, does it say in the affidavit about this conversation you supposedly had with Mr. Minton prior to the New York meetings where he told you that the Church had a copy of a $500,000 check, and he didn’t —

THE WITNESS: I don’t —

MR. WEINBERG: — have a copy and didn’t know where they got it.

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry, I don’t mean to cut you off.

I don’t mention the check specifically, but what I mention is, is the information that Scientology had gotten, information that said they were going to get him prosecuted and put in jail.

You know —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Paragraph 9, do you talk about the conversation — the first conversation where he’s crying?

A Yes. They discovered information about him that

390

threatened his wife and children’s future. You know, again,he’s suicidal. And then —

THE COURT: In your handwritten notes it appears that you are talking about this — this information before Paragraph 3 which deals with Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks flew to New York.

So I presume you were discussing — or you — your notes indicated that occurred before the New York trip?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I don’t think it is very clear, certainly, in the affidavit, but he says that is what he’s talking about.

THE WITNESS: Well, you know, your Honor, I really did try to do the best I could. This is a very disturbing time for me, too.

THE COURT: There is nothing that says that you have to speak to every word of your affidavit. You can expand on it. If that is your testimony, that is fine.

THE WITNESS: Thank you. And, you know, in the days between the New York meeting and the 20th of March that I noted here, which is where I came to find out, you know, what is this. Because Stacy flew there. And after she was there, I let her, you know, get settled.

391

And then he’s telling me, you know, they have got this check. And, you know, and he says — basically, it’s come down to me or Ken Dandar, somebody has to die here.

And I’m like, you know, this was such a complete turnaround. These are people I worked with now for years. We have all been on one accord, doing what we thought were good work. Suddenly now Mr. Minton has to turn on Ken Dandar.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And did you have any further conversation in that phone call with Mr. Minton?

A Well, he informed me —

THE COURT: This is the phone call before –you are saying this is the phone call before the first time Mr. Minton and Ms. Brooks went to New York?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: We’re going to finish that phone call, then we’ll take a break.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

A Yes. He said he didn’t feel safe about discussing the information over the phone, he was too upset to talk about it.

392

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: Did you say this was about a week before the trip to New York?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. I said on or around the 20th of March. And the trip to New York was the 28th of March.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: The 28th and 29th of March.

THE COURT: Let me just say this about affidavits. They wanted me to sign an affidavit of borrower to buy my house. And I refused to sign it without — I said, “I’m not going to sign this without this and this and this and this.”

And finally they just said, “Well, we’re going to throw it out. It is not that important.”

I said, “Well, good.”

All this, and affidavits. It makes me very nervous. You know, some things might not have made me so nervous.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Anything else on that phone call with Mr. Minton before we take our break?

A Mmm, you know, again, starting on March 20th until they actually went to New York, there were many conversations. You know, I don’t want to give the illusion

393

this just happened one phone call and suddenly they were in New York.

THE COURT: Let’s go ahead and break and then we’ll start with — if you want to go into the other phone calls before New York. All right?

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: We’ll be in recess until 3:15.

(WHEREUPON, a recess was taken from 2:55 to 3:15 p.m.)
______________________________________

THE COURT: All right. You may be seated.

MR. FUGATE: Your Honor, before we begin back again, on May 13, 2002 we had filed a request to produce to Mr. Dandar for all financial records of payments to Jesse Prince, including bank records and checks, all W2s, 1099s, and any other tax form issued from Dandar & Dandar for Jesse Prince for tax years 1999, 2000 and 2001. It was never responded to.

I think it is now relevant, based on the testimony elicited, that that be produced, or at least responded to that was filed May 13th of 2001 (sic).

MR. DANDAR: Didn’t we respond to that?

THE COURT: Had you responded to this?

MR. DANDAR: We produced at the time they took

394

Jesse Prince’s deposition — he’s no longer working for me — all of the W2s, 1099s, all of the checks we wrote. We did not respond to that one.

THE COURT: Is there anything additional?

MR. DANDAR: I’ll have to check. I’m sure — you know, since I brought him back on board as my expert, yes, I paid him since then. So there is something additional. But not back on May 13.

THE COURT: You don’t need him to regive you what he has already given you.

MR. FUGATE: No, I’ll go verify what we have and compare that to what he gives us. But — but he needs to respond. And he needs to give us —

THE COURT: I’m not going to require you to give him what he gave you already. So if he gave you stuff for the depositions —

MR. FUGATE: I’ll check that tonight.

THE COURT: Then you must give him whatever else there is.

MR. DANDAR: I will.

THE COURT: Try to have that to him by the morning. All right?

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: You may continue.

395

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay, Mr. Prince, following that telephone conversation, which you said was on or about March 20, 2002 with Mr. Minton, did you have any more conversations with him before he went to see Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen in New York City?

A Yes, I did. I may have had maybe three to four conversations with Mr. Minton and Mrs. Brooks concerning this. Yes.

Q Before the New York City meeting?

A Yes.

Q And what was your relationship with Mr. Minton at that time?

A Mr. Minton was a good friend of mine. A person that I trusted. You know, we worked together.

Q Okay. Did he confide in you?

A Yes. On some things, he certainly did.

Q And some things, he didn’t?

A I can’t say that he confided in me on everything. But I know some things he did.

Q All right. For instance, when he talked about somehow this check was going to make him and his wife go to jail, did he confide in you what it was that they got — this new thing in the year 2002 that caused him to think he was going to go to jail?

396

A You know, he said that they got a copy of that check, that — Mmm — that he — you know, had given different testimony, I think, in a deposition or something.

And this is what was going to — this is how they were going to put him in jail for perjury.

Q And did he — all right. Did he go into more detail how that was going to be perjury?

A Because he said that he had given testimony contrary to — you know, in other words, this check, this $500,000 check, came from him, apparently, not people from Europe. Scientology had discovered that. And they were going to use it to get him convicted for perjury.

Q Did you ask him why he lied to you and told you that check was from people in Europe?

A You know, that was a very good question that I should have asked. But at the time this was all new news to me.

He’s telling me, you know, “Oh, well, it came from me, it didn’t come from him. Now I’m in trouble and now they are getting ready to depose my wife Therese and bring her in on all of this stuff.”

And in the heat of the moment, the panic of the moment, I’m sure I didn’t ask, you know, all of the right questions. But no, I didn’t ask him that specific question.

Q During those three or four other telephone calls with Mr. Minton before the New York meeting he had with

397

Mr. Rosen and Mr. Rinder, did Mr. Minton tell you how it was that Scientology can find out that this bank check from UBS that doesn’t have his name on it came from him?

A The only comment he said was he had no idea how they possibly got a copy of that check because he himself did not have a copy, nor did he know how to obtain a copy.

Q Did Mr. Minton ever mention to you anything about Swiss prosecutors during — before the New York meeting?

A Yes, he did. He told me that there was yet another action being contemplated by a prosecutor in Switzerland. And it was my understanding that this had something to do with Nigeria but I’m not sure. You know, I don’t know the details of it.

Q And he told you this in March before the New York meeting?

A Yes.

Q Now, isn’t it true that before Minton called —

MR. WEINBERG: Object to the form to the question, “Isn’t it true.”

THE COURT: Yes, “isn’t it true” is suggesting that the answer to that is yes. I mean, I don’t know what the question is, but I know what the answer is. That is what the leading part is.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What was your understanding, Mr. Prince, of the

398

status of the Swiss prosecution concerning Mr. Minton prior to Mr. Minton’s frantic calls to you in March of 2002?

MR. FUGATE: Objection, hearsay. Or at least the basis for this statement, “What was your understanding.”

THE COURT: If it came from Mr. Minton, he can answer. If it came from somebody else, then I am not sure you can answer.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q From Mr. Minton.

A Mr. Minton told me they were going to prosecute, going to file charges.

THE COURT: In Switzerland?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q When did he tell you that?

A Mmm, at one of the phone conversations between the 20th and 28th of March.

Q Well, my question is prior to that, had you ever heard from Mr. Minton about Swiss prosecutors?

A Oh, yes. I mentioned that before.

Q Right. And what was the status of the Swiss prosecution prior to you getting this call —

A These phone calls? Oh, I thought it was over.

Q What made you think that?

399

A Because Patrick Jost had went over there and talked with people.

There was one other thing that was pending which, when Scientology got the bank records for the Bank of America, somehow the Bank of — someone in the Bank of America in Europe, some executive or some banking official, had did something that was improper concerning either divulging or passing along information about Mr. Minton’s accounts. And Mr. Jost was over there to pursue that.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Hearsay as to any conversations with Mr. Jost or anybody else. If he’s saying this is something Mr. Minton said, I would appreciate if he could date it.

THE COURT: Is this something you learned from Mr. Minton?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Could you tell us about when that was?

THE WITNESS: Mmm, gosh. This — this would have to be in the fall of 2001. Maybe October, something like that.

THE COURT: As best you can remember?

THE WITNESS: As best I can recall, yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. What was it the Bank of America

400

official in Europe did improperly, according to Mr. Minton, what he told you?

THE COURT: Does this have something to do with this Swiss prosecution?

MR. DANDAR: I don’t know.

A This has something to do with when the bank records were obtained by Scientology here, the Bank of America somehow simultaneously did something — something happened in Europe, as well. I think they used the fact they had these records to get information that they were not supposed to get, they made it appear like the Court sanctioned them having this information or it was proper for them to get the information, when it was not.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How did Mr. Minton react to them getting this information in Europe?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Your Honor, this is hearsay based on hearsay. It is speculation. Then the question is how did they react to the Church supposedly getting this information in Europe? What information in Europe? What is he talking about? This is just hearsay.

And, you know, Mr. Minton testified. Mr. Dandar had an opportunity to ask Mr. Minton about this. He didn’t say anything about this,

401

about this accusation or anything like this. He didn’t even ask him the question.

THE COURT: Overruled. This bears on Mr. Minton’s state of mind, anything Mr. Minton may have said about what he thought was going on, what the Church knew. Remember, we had a lot of this, as I tried to explain.

MR. WEINBERG: I object more to the form of the question. When he said the Church did such and such at such and such a time, it is just an improper form, I think.

MR. DANDAR: It is based on the witness’s answer.

THE COURT: Right.

A He was very distraught and upset that this had happened. You know, he felt like that there was no one that could be trusted or no one who was impervious to Scientology’s ability to penetrate and get information that they should necessarily have.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, just for the record, so we are talking about now the fall of 2001 that he’s distraught?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Is this —

THE WITNESS: Yes.

402

THE COURT: The same October period of 2001?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And even — did you have any conversations with Mr. Minton in January or February of 2002 before you had this — what you described as this March 20 — the first call in 2002?

A Conversations concerning?

Q Mr. Minton’s well-being, his mental state?

A Well, Mr. Minton — back in the fall of 2001, we decided that we could no longer operate the Lisa McPherson Trust. He was quite despondent about that. He was despondent about what to do with the people that we were either in the process of servicing or starting some — something with new people that were calling. And plus the phones just never stopped ringing.

So he was distraught over the fact that it wouldn’t be there anymore. He was distraught over the fact he felt Scientology had successfully caused the Lisa McPherson Trust to no longer exist because of a misunderstanding, that misunderstanding being that it was somehow inextricably tied into the Lisa McPherson case.

Q Did Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks order you to quit being the expert for the estate?

A Ms. Brooks asked me to — and this, again, is in

403

the fall of 2001 — to not be an expert in this case on the theory that anything — we were trying to sever any real or imagined ideas that the Lisa McPherson Trust was connected with the ongoing litigation.

Q And did you listen to her?

A No. I — I — I consulted Bob about that. I had a conversation with him.

And he told me that Mrs. Brooks was very upset about the discovery that was going on, particularly the finances. And — Mmm — this is why she was doing it. And he understood why she was doing it.

And — Mmm — what he said, you know, “If Ken — you are Ken’s expert. If he’s going to need you, you know, I’m sure you’re going to go and do what you have to do.”

MR. WEINBERG: Could we date that, your Honor, when that conversation took place?

THE WITNESS: Mmm, I think we were speaking about late 2001/early 2002. Maybe January, around there. This is as close as I can place it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, prior to that, you filed or signed an affidavit dated September of 2001 withdrawing as the expert for the estate.

A Okay.

Q So was this conversation with Stacy Brooks before,

404

or after, that affidavit?

A Preceding that.

Q So it was before that?

A Correct.

Q All right. And in that affidavit — do you recall that affidavit when you withdrew as the expert?

A Not particularly.

Q No?

A I mean, I have a general idea.

Q What is your general idea of why you withdrew as the expert?

A Mmm, again, this was during the time period when the Lisa McPherson Trust was in the process of closing. The trust itself had literally been drained of operating funds for, you know, paying lawyers. This wasn’t anything that we ever anticipated or budgeted for. And it became the most expensive part of the operation, which was trying to step away from this case. And that is what I remember about it.

Q Let me show you your signed affidavit September 21, 2001 and see if you can identify that.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, do you need another copy of this?

THE COURT: No. No. This is the one I remember quite well.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

405

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, is he impeaching Mr. Prince with this affidavit now?

THE COURT: I don’t know if he’s trying to refresh his memory or what.

MR. DANDAR: Refresh.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q First of all, is that your affidavit?

A Yes, it is.

Q Did you prepare that affidavit?

A Yes, I did.

Q Did you sign it?

A Yes, I did.

Q Is that the affidavit that you signed concerning the reasons for your withdrawal as the estate’s expert?

A Yes, it is. And, you know, I remember because I was talking about now the trust was closing, there were no lawyers — I mean we just couldn’t afford to pay lawyers anymore.

I personally cannot afford to have a lawyer to come in here and do activities like you are involved in or represent me or — or be here on my behalf. I have a family. I have people that are totally innocent to this and could care less.

But my family was threatened with the Scientology operation that was wrought on me to plant drugs in my house

406

and get my house raided by the DEA, and try to get multiple charges put against me. And now I’m losing my job, too. There is no way that I could continue this activity without being able to see that my family would be safe and cared for.

Q Did you continue to receive income from Bob Minton or Stacy Brooks in the fall of 2001?

A Yes.

Q And the income you received in the fall of 2001, was that from Stacy Brooks individually, or from the Lisa McPherson Trust?

A I think it was probably Ms. Brooks individually.

Q Okay. What about 2002? Did she continue to pay you?

THE COURT: When did — when did LMT close down again? I have been away from this awhile and some of the details are out of my mind.

MR. DANDAR: It closed in August.

THE COURT: Of 2001?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, you tell us, Mr. Prince, instead of me.

What was going on in the LMT in the fall of 2001?

A They were closing — wrapping up, closing down, terminating the operation. Mmm, there was an order to allow

407

a magistrate to come in and go through the personal files and records at the trust. So for a month or two it was kind of kept open for that reason alone, just to finish that. So that — you know, there was an extensive library that —
that library had to be shipped, cleaned — the building had to be cleaned up and prepared to be sold.

It became our responsibility to ensure that the building did get sold. I had a verbal agreement with Mr. Minton, because at that point I didn’t have a lot of money either, that if I sold the building, I would get 25 percent of whatever the building sold for so that I could move — I was in the process of leaving Clearwater. My house was on the market. We were finished — the trust was over. We were finished.

I mean, if that is what Scientology wanted, they had accomplished it. It was finished. We were all moving.

I put my house on the market, put the building on the market, we were trying to sell it. We’re — we’re done. But it is never done, I guess.

Q Back to 2002, do you believe — have we exhausted your conversations with Mr. Minton or Stacy Brooks prior to the New York City meetings?

A The only additional things —

THE COURT: I just dread the thought of asking this question, but are you suggesting there is some

408

agreement between you and Mr. Minton regarding the sale of real estate, as to your receiving proceeds from it?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: I see. Is there a lawyer in the room that wants to take that on a contingency? Probably not, Mr. Prince.

Okay. Continue on.

THE WITNESS: You know, I missed the point. I guess you’ll explain it to me later.

MR. DANDAR: That is all right.

THE WITNESS: I hate to miss the punch line.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So anything else about these phone calls, before we get to the New York City meeting?

A Well, the only other thing I think I covered in my affidavit that Mr. Minton said is, you know, after having conversations with Mr. Rinder, that it basically boiled down to who is going to die? Is it going to be Ken Dandar? Is
it going to be me. And I —

THE COURT: Is that the word he used, “die”?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor. And for the life of me, you know, I couldn’t get a concept of what he was saying. I mean, he said it several times —

409

THE COURT: Is this — I’m sorry, my mind is off on agreements and it is kind of an insider joke that has nothing to do with you really, a lot of agreements we’re talking about in this particular hearing, and we teasingly asked about what lawyer would take what on a contingency fee.

THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. So nobody wants my opinion.

THE COURT: Well, it will be volunteered, Mr. Prince.

Was this before or after the New York meeting, this conversation?

THE WITNESS: This was before the New York meeting. This is after Ms. Brooks arrived.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: He was telling me that, you know, that somebody has to die.

And, you know, Bob has always come to me, when he wanted to interface or maybe know something from Ken, he’s asked me, you know.

So for the life of me, I couldn’t figure out how is it now that suddenly we sit here today and we have to decide who dies. Why does anyone have to die? That was my question.

And — Mmm — he told me that for them — for

410

him not to go to jail and be prosecuted — and he had actions going in both cases in front of both judges, Judge Schaeffer and Judge Baird — that he somehow had to make this case go away, the Lawrence Wollersheim case go away, and that is — he said, “That is all — that is what they said they want.

So we’re going to go talk about that.”

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In New York City?

A Yes.

Q All right. And — all right. Anything else, before we get to New York City?

A That — Mmm — Stacy was just adamant that she would be able to successfully settle with Scientology so that they would disengage Bob Minton, because he was literally being driven insane. He was terrorized into a state of mind that was beyond anything he was capable of dealing with.

THE COURT: Did you ever ask him what — when he used the word “die,” whether he was — I mean, we all say, “Oh, I’m just going to die if such and such happens.” But he was not using that word in a literal sense, that was a —

THE WITNESS: Well, I asked him later about this.

411

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: After they came back from New York and was in the hotel, what was he talking about.

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: And what he was talking about was saying that Ken Dandar, as one thing, perjured — you know, blamed the perjury on Ken. I mean, these are all things to do to get rid of the case. Okay, so now we made Ken responsible for any perjury that Bob Minton did. Then, you know, he mentioned about what’s going to happen is Mr. Dandar is going to be disbarred.

And I took it a step further. I said, “Well, if Mr. Dandar gets disbarred, he’s going to lose his business. If Mr. Dandar loses his business, he’s going to lose his home and his family. Is this really what you want for Ken Dandar after you built him up all of this time, and now you get in trouble and now this is what we do?”

THE COURT: So, again, I think my question was is we all tend to use the word “die” and we don’t really mean it literally, drop dead, I mean, die.

THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, I don’t think —

THE COURT: He meant either business-wise or

412

something?

THE WITNESS: Professional decease, to cause decease, which is in accord with one of the Scientology policies we have gone over here.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Is that known as fair game?

A No. It is called the Scientologist’s Manual of Dissemination, where it talks about, if possible, of course, ruin the person utterly.

Q Let’s get to New York City. Did you have any conversations with Bob Minton or Stacy Brooks about the New York City meeting with Rosen, Rinder and Yingling?

A Yes, I did. When they were traveling to New York City, I was traveling to Memphis, Tennessee to drop my family off. It had just reached a peak for me. And I just wanted to have some safety in my life.

So they called me when they left home. They called me when they arrived. They called me when they met, had the first meetings. They seemed somewhat hopeful. Then, of course, the next day happened.

But when they got there, you know, Steve Jonas arrived. They were there. They met. They went over what they wanted. And Bob — you know, one of the things Bob did, which I didn’t know he was going to do until he got to New York, is he said he wanted my house to be able to be

413

sold, because I had had my house on the market for some time, zillions of people were coming there. And, you know, unfortunately, it just didn’t sell.

So he thought that that may have had some Scientology influence. And the reason why I think he thinks that, because the realtor for our building —

THE COURT: He? This is Mr. Minton again?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

A The realtor for the building in downtown called Mr. Minton while he was in New York and told him he had had a buyer for the LMT building, and this buyer was a person that sold furniture, sold used furniture.

And he mentioned this potential buyer — this potential buyer mentioned to his clients, current clients, that he was going to move his operations to this building, and would that be okay, would he still be able to service them.

And he came back and said he found out that 45 percent of his clients were, in fact, Scientologists.

And he was told in no uncertain terms that if he moved into that building, that they would no longer do business with him. So —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I object.

A He couldn’t — he couldn’t —

414

MR. WEINBERG: This is hearsay on hearsay. This is supposedly what Mr. Minton said that somebody said.

THE WITNESS: No. Mr. Minton said to me that the realtor —

MR. WEINBERG: Said to him. Objection, double hearsay.

THE COURT: I do understand. But, remember, this has to do with Mr. Minton and whether Mr. Minton has lied or whether Mr. Dandar is lying.

Mr. Minton’s state of mind, therefore, becomes, to some extent, relevant.

I understand it is double hearsay. I understand what that means. But I’ll allow it. It is a very unusual hearing.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So when did you first hear back from Bob Minton concerning the first day of the New York City meeting on the 28th?

A The night of the 28th after they met. He said, “Well, we met.”

I spoke to Stacy. She said, “I think it is going to be okay. I think we’ll be able to work this out. Ken Dandar is not going to be happy.”

415

Mmm, you know, I said, “Okay,” whatever that meant, because, you know, I’m not really tracking. I just know something traumatic has happened, it has to do with some information that came up on Bob, and I know that now Stacy Brooks and Bob Minton are in negotiations to disengage this whole thing, and I am not there but they are calling me, telling me what is going on.

Q Did they tell you why I would not be happy?

A Whew. Because they were going to say that you caused Bob Minton to lie about the check — that you advised him to lie about the check. This was during that particular time.

THE COURT: Is this Ms. Brooks testifying — or Ms. Brooks telling you this? Or is this Mr. Minton telling you this?

THE WITNESS: You know, it is kind of a bit of both, your Honor.

THE COURT: Was this over the telephone?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: This was after the first New York meeting?

THE WITNESS: This was the night of the first day of the meeting on the 28th.

THE COURT: Of March?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

416

THE COURT: It was this night they were explaining to you — either Bob or Stacy, or both of them, on the phone, explaining why Ken wasn’t going to be happy?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, I want to make sure you don’t have your dates mixed up. Could you look at your affidavit to refresh your memory and make sure you have your dates down when you first mentioned that Ken Dandar wasn’t going to be happy.

A Okey-doke. Okay, I’m looking at my affidavit —

Q By the way, who typed that affidavit?

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

THE COURT: Just a second now.

MR. WEINBERG: I object to this process. He has done this a number of times. He elicits testimony. Mr. Prince testifies, he’s very specific, he had this conversation.

Then Mr. Dandar takes his affidavit and says, “Well, look at this and see if it is really your testimony.” He’s impeaching him.

MR. DANDAR: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think it is proper.

417

THE COURT: I think that I’m — I have heard his testimony. I think he can look at his affidavit and see if it refreshes his memory. If it does, I’ll just have to remember his testimony was different before it was refreshed with this
affidavit.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

A Yes. Okay. I talk about the problem with the checks. We talked about that again. This was the next day on the 29th — now, wait a minute. “Bob told me he called –” now, see, this is before they went to New York, “Bob told me he made — ”

THE COURT: You are going way too fast.

A “Scientology was going to put him in jail.”

THE COURT: What page are you on, please?

THE WITNESS: I’m on Page 3. Bottom of Page 3, Line 27 —

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: — and 28. “Bob said there was a problem with some checks he had given to Ken Dandar.”

That was the —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q That is before the New York trip?

A Yes. Okay, so they arrive in New York. “The next

418

day, on the 29th, the next day around noontime,” I’m on Page 4, Line 10, “Stacy called me. She was upset. Bob was going to jail for contempt in front of Judge Schaeffer, going to jail for perjury in front of Judge Baird. At this point they had only mentioned to me about the wrongful death suit and the Wollersheim suit having to be dismissed for Bob not to go to jail. Mr. Rinder –”

THE COURT: You don’t have to read out loud.

You really are looking to see when it was that — if this — if this refreshes your memory as to when this statement about why it was that Mr. Dandar would not be happy.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q When did that first occur?

THE COURT: When it occurred.

A Either the 28th or the 29th, one of those two days.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay. And then again I want you to look at your affidavit —

A And, you know, this information was sketchy because I didn’t get the full picture until they came here to Florida. I wasn’t able to divine the full picture until they actually came back from that meeting.

419

Q Okay.

A Now —

Q Do you recall — do you recall that Mr. Minton called you up, after the second day of the New York City meeting, to talk to you about a phone call he received from Mr. Rinder?

A Oh, after they got back from New York?

Q Right.

A Yes — well, no. Stacy is the one that I spoke to.

Q What did she say?

A She said, after they got back from New York, they were all upset and thought they wouldn’t be able to negotiate with Mr. Rinder and Mr. Rosen.

Q Why? Why wouldn’t they be able to negotiate?

A Because they told Mr. Rosen and Mr. Rinder flat out that they had no influence to get either of these cases dismissed or made go away or whatever, they had no authority to do that; that Stacy Brooks had already made an attempt to contact Dell Liebreich to get her to drop the case, so she wasn’t interested in hearing from Stacy; and Mr. Wollersheim certainly — and Mr. Leipold were certainly not interested in dismissing their case, either.

THE COURT: When — now, I’m so confused, and I haven’t read your affidavit in some time so I’m

420

listening basically to your testimony.

You indicated — what I think you just said is Ms. Brooks told you on the telephone that she had told Mr. Rinder that they didn’t have the proper influence to get the case dismissed?

THE WITNESS: See, I’m totally screwing this up if you think that, your Honor, because what I’m saying there is that happened in New York where they were face-to-face with Mr. Rinder, with — at least this is what was relayed to me by Stacy and by Bob on the phone conversation when they left the office, I think it was about noontime on the 29th where they tried to make it clear that they had no influence over these cases and they were asking them to do something they were not able to do.

THE COURT: What confuses me, if I did understand your testimony, after the New York meeting, perhaps the very night of the New York meeting, Stacy called and — Stacy and/or Bob called and said, “I think we’re going to be able to work this out.”

THE WITNESS: Yes, that was after they came back to New Hampshire, left New York, because they were back in New Hampshire that day.

THE COURT: Okay.

421

THE WITNESS: It was either that night or the next day I spoke to Stacy Brooks, and she said she had received a second conversation from Mr. Rinder, who mentioned that he thought that there may have been a misunderstanding, while he understood that they legally — or, you know, weren’t plaintiff or defendant, had no standing to effect these cases one way or another, that there were things that could be done to get the same result.

THE COURT: This was another conversation with Mr. Rinder and Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks, when they told you about that, that is when they said, “We think we can do something but it is not going to make Ken Dandar happy”?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Would that be on the 29th, your Honor?

THE COURT: I believe.

THE WITNESS: The 29th or the 30th or such a date of this.

MR. WEINBERG: Of March?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q When did you get the details about what that meant about Ken Dandar not being happy?

422

A When they traveled to Florida for the Judge Baird hearing that was, I think, occurring on April 5.

Q That is Judge Schaeffer.

A Hmmm?

Q Judge Schaeffer was April 5?

A That is right. Judge Schaeffer was April 5. But they had a Baird one right the next week or whatever.

Q Right.

A Anyway, when they came down for that activity, then we had a meeting at the Harbour Bay Hotel in Tampa, Florida where they made it clear to me what was happening here.

Because I asked them, “Did you find out what these things were that you can do to make these cases go away?”

I’ll start with Wollersheim because that will be quickly.

Q All right.

A She said what she had already done and told Scientology she would do and had done, that she called Dan Leipold and told him to withdraw her testimony — her affidavits in the Wollersheim case, and she had instructed him to do the same for my affidavits.

And there was only three, Vaughn Young, Stacy and me. Vaughn Young, because of his physical condition, how upset he would be to even do that, she told me she had not

423

promised Scientology anything in relationship to Vaughn, but she could promise the relationship to me and her.

Q How did you react to your affidavit being withdrawn?

A I was shocked. I was like, “I’m not withdrawing my affidavit.”

Q Why did she want to withdraw her affidavit?

A Because these are the things that she could do — you know, they want — they want what are the things you can do? What you can do is take your testimony out. Take Jesse’s testimony out of there. Because there was only three witnesses that they were using on the issue of alter ego to claim the judgment.

Q Did you ever —

MR. WEINBERG: Before — could we just date that? Is that at Harbour Island? Is that what you are saying? Could we just date it?

THE WITNESS: I think I dated it in the affidavit.

THE COURT: You want to look at your affidavit and see if you can find it then?

THE WITNESS: Okay. Okay. Yes, Page 5, Line 11.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What is the date?

424

A If you look at Line 22, he starts talking about things that could be done.

THE COURT: Line 22?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Where it starts talking about things that could be done.

THE COURT: And that is where you use the phrase, “Ken Dandar was not going to be happy”?

THE WITNESS: Right. So when we met at the hotel, you know — and I’m doing the best job I can here — I asked them — they mentioned about getting the affidavits out of the Wollersheim case, then specifically here in the wrongful death case — “Well, what are you going to do with that?”

“Well, Mmm, we’re going to –” they had a couple of things they were going over. One, the perjury of the check to make it seem like it was Ken Dandar’s fault. And then they were insistent about some meeting that had occurred which included myself, Dr. Garko, Stacy Brooks, Bob Minton, Mr. Dandar, where we were discussing adding Mr. Miscavige as a party, and how Ken Dandar had instructed Mr. Minton to say the conversation never happened, something about it never happened.

Now, you know, for me, I’m not understanding

425

this because it is not making a whole lot of sense why it would matter one way or another. You know, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not a criminal, I didn’t understand what they were talking about. But those were two things specifically that they mentioned bringing out about Mr. Dandar and connecting him with perjury.

THE COURT: One was the check? Is it the $500,000 check that you testified to previously?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Number two was some meeting that occurred dealing with adding Mr. Miscavige as a party?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Was there anything else of how they were going to get Ken Dandar, besides these two items?

A Well, the only other thing that came up — I knew about those two things. But then they had the meeting with Judge Schaeffer where Bruce Howie did something, and the whole thing was moot. And they were happy about that.

I think maybe that same day he got served with the Armstrong suit. And he told me, “It’s not over, I still have got to go in front of Judge Baird.”
Now, I think at that same time the decisions came

426

down from the 2nd — from the appeals court concerning discovery issues with finances and this, that and the other thing, so it was kind of like things were turning around.

So I’m questioning them, “Do you really think you need to do this?”

And they are trying to elicit my cooperation, like we used to have this thing amongst us, me, Stacy and Bob, we called ourselves the A team. There was three of us, this is an A team activity. It is tough at the top, we have to make some hard decisions here, you know. So I’m part of that entity. So we’re discussing these matters. And, Mmm —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, is this all one conversation? Does it mean it happened after your hearing on April 5?

THE COURT: I’m not real sure.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: Was this all at the same conversation?

THE WITNESS: Mmm, your Honor, maybe not because, I mean, I was with them the whole time and, you know, Page 5, starting at Line 11 — 16, Number on the affidavit, I talked about the time periods we were there, the 2nd or 3rd of April through —

THE COURT: Did you try, in your affidavit, to date the time frames when these conversations took

427

place as you remembered them?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. I sat there with a calendar and I did it as best I could.

THE COURT: Okay. So those are the dates as best you can recall?

THE WITNESS: As best I can recall.

THE COURT: All right. So whatever it says in the affidavit is the best he can recall.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE WITNESS: Yes, that is the way I sat and worked on it.

MR. WEINBERG: I was really more asking whether this was one conversation or he was — he talked about a conversation in the Harbour — I think he meant Harbour Island Hotel, but —

THE COURT: It depends what the affidavit says.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: Is that right, Mr. Prince?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: The affidavit speaks of these things that you have been talking about in different conversations. That would be your testimony if you refreshed your memory?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

428

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So your memory was better when you wrote this in April than it is in July?

A For sure.

Q In your affidavit you say Harbor Bay Hotel. That is not Harbour Island Hotel. Do you know where the Harbor Bay Hotel is?

A No, I guess not if I am confused about it. It is the one that has the restaurant in there — well, that means nothing, they all have. Okay, I’m sorry, I spoke out of turn.

Q All right. But what I’m saying, when you took the time to sit down and write your affidavit of April 2002, of course you weren’t under pressure, being examined in front of a judge in a courtroom. You said you had a calendar in
front of you?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Now, let’s jump back again to New York City. All right?

A Okay.

Q Well, no, I’m sorry. Let’s go to the conversations you had with Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks about New York City.

Did they tell you what type of things Mr. Rosen said to Mr. Minton at the New York City meetings?

429

A That he was going to jail and actually spoke with him quite loudly about this. That he was going to jail. He was going to be prosecuted in front of Judge Schaeffer and Judge Baird.

Mmm, by giving the affidavit, I wrote either Bob — Mr. Rinder — he told me — Bob Minton told me specifically Mr. Rinder said, you know, “Bob, you know I’m f-ing you but I’m doing it to your face. You have people around you that are doing it behind your back.”

And he mentioned the people that were doing it behind his back being yourself, Patricia Greenway and Peter Alexander.

Q Did there come a point in time when Mr. Minton showed you any documents that he received from the Church of Scientology?

A Yes. This was when they had — yeah, now this is after I actually attended the Judge Baird hearing, saw Bob get up on the stand and start lying, and left and went to —

Q All right, I probably jumped the gun. And I apologize. Let’s go back.

Before we get to the Judge Baird hearing, let’s make sure, as far as you can recall today, what transpired when Bob and Stacy came to Florida.

A The first time they came to Florida, they were concerned about the hearing in front of Judge Schaeffer.

430

They were meeting with Bruce Howie. They were continuing to meet with Scientology, working on the things that could be done to get these suits dismissed.

And I guess part of it was to elicit my cooperation to go along with this new plan to disengage Scientology from Bob Minton.

Q Okay. And did Mark Bunker come with them?

A Yes.

Q And Mark Bunker, did he stay at your house?

A Yes, he did.

Q Did anyone else stay at your house?

A No.

Q All right. So did you attend the deposition of Mr. Minton on April 8?

A No, I did not.

Q All right. So the first time you saw Mr. Minton testify was before Judge Baird?

A Correct.

Q All right. And you said that you sat in the audience?

A Yes, I did.

Q And what did you hear Mr. Minton say you thought was a lie?

A Mmm, something about Mr. Dandar making — telling Bob to perjure himself in relationship to the checks.

431

Q All right. How did you know that was a lie?

A Because if that would have happened, I would have known about it when it happened. You know —

Q Why is that?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. I move to strike, “if that would have happened, I would have known about it when it happened.” How is that a response?

MR. DANDAR: I’m asking him to explain it right now.

THE COURT: Yes. Overruled.

A If there had been some agreement between Mr. Dandar and Bob Minton to hide the fact that — the check, I would have known about it when it happened.

THE COURT: Are you saying that Mr. Minton would have told you?

THE WITNESS: Yes. That is what I’m trying to say. He would have told me when it happened. Now, this coming up after all of this time, when I’m sitting there and he — you know, he’s taking us up to the garage when he gave the check, he’s saying this stuff is coming from Europe and you don’t know where it is coming from, on and on, now suddenly he changes his mind, I knew it was a lie.

Or he told me — one way or another, he’s lying now.

432

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. What was the next thing he lied about before Judge Baird?

A I just got up and just walked out. I couldn’t take it. I couldn’t believe what was happening. I was extremely distraught.

As I say in my affidavit, I actually wept because — you know, because once again we see the big Scientology machine, with all of its high-priced lawyers and endless resources, endless staff, to make this occur. “We can’t get the case dismissed or thrown out in any other way so now let’s go manufacture some information.”

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor.

A Let’s create —

MR. WEINBERG: This is pure and utter speculation.

THE COURT: Not only that, but I think it is just kind of a discussion what he thinks. And, frankly, I need his testimony, not what he thinks. He can put that in someplace else.

That objection is sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Before you walked out of the courtroom, did you hear Mr. Minton say any other lie outside of the Dandar making a lie about the $500,000 check?

433

A No. I got up and left immediately.

Q All right. And when is the next time you were talking with Mr. Minton or Stacy Brooks?

A After they had left Clearwater. I mean, I just couldn’t even stand to be around them anymore. When I saw that that thing happened in front of Judge Baird, I didn’t know what to do.

And I finally figured that, you know, in my mind something criminal was going on here, I need to do something to help my friends. So I went to visit Mr. Denis deVlaming. And I —

THE COURT: When you say to help your friends, you are talking about your friends Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So you went, on your own, to Denis’s office?

A Yes.

THE COURT: I’m sorry, I should not put words in your mouth, either. Obviously you meant Mr. Minton when you say friends. Who was the other friend?

THE WITNESS: Mmm, Stacy Brooks. I went to Mr. deVlaming’s office and I explained to him that I had been privileged to know that this was going to

434

happen, that this was going to be created and done against you, and I explained the whole thing to him.

And his reaction was, “Oh, well, they got him this time.” But because he had represented me before, and he had also represented Mr. Minton, he told me that it was a conflict of interest, because I went there to see if I could somehow get law enforcement involved in what was going on here because I was confident that Bob was lying on behalf of Scientology.

And I asked him to put me in touch with someone on a federal level, because I believed that Scientology did have influence in the state prosecutor’s office. I believed that they were able to somehow enact, somehow, undue influence on prosecutors simply because they never get prosecuted for the things that they do. And I myself, you know, I could have one little small marijuana plant in my house, I’m raided by the DEA.

But, you know, a person — a dead body shows up, they can’t do anything.

I had no confidence in that. I asked a federal — asked for federal protection, a federal level, because I said in my mind what they have done is RICO; they have conspired to commit a crime that

435

started in New York, they continued it down here in Clearwater.

Bob told me clearly that he was not going to involve his lawyers in the negotiations proper to any degree where they’re really getting down to the meat and potatoes.

THE COURT: Did Bob tell you why?

THE WITNESS: Because they disagreed.

Mr. Jonas thought the whole thing was disgusting and distasteful that was going on.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Minton’s lawyer?

A Yes. Mr. Jonas, up in Boston. And you notice he has been visibly gone. He didn’t want nothing to do with this.

So they decided to use Mr. Howie to enact this. And they didn’t tell him what was going on. They were happily meeting with these lawyers and without any representation.

Q Well, why —

THE COURT: Wait, you said they were happily meeting with these lawyers without representation.

What is it you mean?

THE WITNESS: The lawyers specifically that Bob and Stacy were meeting with was Sandy Rosen and

436

Monique Yingling.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did Mr. Minton tell you why he chose not to have Mr. Howie or Mr. Jonas go with him to meet with Mr. Rinder, Mr. Rosen and Ms. Yingling?

A Mr. Jonas thought the whole thing was disgusting and distasteful and thought it would be improper.

And he told Bob specifically — and Bob told me he told him — not to meet with Scientology without representation.

Mr. Minton — Mr. Minton mentioned that Mr. Howie could be used because he didn’t really understand what was going on in the first place with — I mean, and the reason why he didn’t understand, it is not because he’s a stupid or ignorant person — but because they weren’t giving him all of the information, Bob and Stacy were not telling Mr. Howie everything, they were negotiating with Scientology and telling Mr. Howie what they wanted him to hear.

Q But why — did Mr. Minton explain to you why he chose not to have his attorneys be present at the meetings?

THE COURT: I presume you’re talking about the meetings in Florida?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: And his lawyer down in Florida being Mr. Howie?

437

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Because Mr. Jonas was in New York?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Yes. Did he tell you why he didn’t want Mr. Howie at these meetings?

A Mr. Minton expressed to me that he had personally had enough of lawyers, period. And he thought that this is something he needed to do.

Q All right. By the way, did Mr. Minton ever appear at a meeting with you, me, Dr. Garko, Stacy Brooks, to talk about adding on David Miscavige?

A No.

Q Ever?

A No. This was the second big point, you know, that — you know, that Stacy is going on and on, “Jesse, you have to remember, it happened like this.”

“I told you, you are imagining this. It never happened. I’m not going to sit and lie about this.”

But this was another point I was supposed to go along with at the meeting. This is where they were really trying to bring me in to find these points to get you, basically.

Q Well, what made you not join and continue to be part of the A team, as you call it?

A Well —

438

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I — can we explain what the A team is? Because maybe I missed something.

THE COURT: Yes, the A team is Jesse Prince, Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks. They laughingly referred to themselves as the A team.

MR. WEINBERG: I guess I was daydreaming. I didn’t hear that. Sorry.

THE COURT: I did. So I — I miss some, but I recall that.

MR. WEINBERG: You caught that but I missed the A team. Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So why did you choose not to go along?

A Well, Mr. Dandar, for obvious reasons. Number one, I worked for years on this case. I have worked honestly, to the best of my ability, on this case. I assumed that Stacy was, as well.

Mmm, I understood that Bob Minton — Scientology discovered something about him that upset him greatly and had him horribly concerned. But I wasn’t going to lie to protect him to hurt someone else.

And, in fact, my exact words to Mr. Minton was — and Mrs. Brooks, that I will never, in my life, help Scientology hurt or destroy one more person.

439

Q When did you tell them that?

A After — after I walked out of Judge Baird’s courtroom, and then now they’re all looking for me and they’re calling around to see if I’m in jail or see if I’m in the hospital. They thought I had a heart attack, because I was visibly upset. I mean, I was shaking when I walked out of that Judge Baird’s courtroom.

But the thing is I didn’t want to see them. I told my fiance, “You tell them to go home where they live because –” excuse this expression “– they have come and shit all over where I live, I don’t want to see them. You go back to where you live and then we’ll discuss this.”

And we discussed it. And when we discussed it, when I got on the phone with them after they got back, that is when I had the conversation and said that to them. “I can’t do it.”

Q Did you meet with them after Judge Baird’s hearing in Clearwater?

A Yes. I met with them a couple — not after the Judge Baird hearing. You know, at a later date after that, sure.

Q Do you recall meeting with them that following weekend?

A It could have been that weekend. Again, I have done the dates here to the best of my recollection, with

440

sitting down with the calendar. But it was after the Judge Baird — yeah, because Bob had been deposed — no, wait a minute, I’m confusing incidents now, because by the time they went back, they had already been through the Baird (sic) deposition and they were having the contempt hearing or whatever it was in front of Baird where he lied.

So, you know, they came back at a later date. And the discussion was — after they got back to New Hampshire, I told them how upset I was and how I couldn’t do it, and Stacy said to me in no uncertain terms that, “The reason you feel this way is because you don’t have all of the information. We’ve been leaving you out of the loop on some things that you need to know.”

She said that they had signed some agreement with Scientology, so — she couldn’t tell me everything, but the next step was to bring me back into the circle to make this go away for Bob.

And Stacy was just hell bent for leather to do whatever she had to do to disengage Bob from Scientology because she thought it was killing him.

Q Did you meet with them in Clearwater then?

A Yes, I did. We met at Adam’s Mark Hotel.

Q At the Adam’s Mark Hotel there are two things I want you to talk about. Number one, the conversation. And, number two, any documents you saw.

441

A Well, I hadn’t seen Bob. He knew I was furious with him. I hadn’t seen Stacy because I was furious with her. But we agreed to meet because we were friends.

Friends don’t get along every day. It would be nice if you did. But you don’t lose a friend because there is a disagreement.

So we met. And Bob told me, you know, he said, “Look, Jesse, you know, I’m not sure that this is gonna work, either. Stacy is more confident about doing this than I am. I don’t know.” We were kind of having that discussion.

Then the phone rang. Mr. Minton spoke with someone and he said, “Okay, leave it at the desk” and he hung up the phone.

And I asked him what that was.

And he said Scientology was delivering to him a packet of information that had to do with his prior deposition testimony — or prior testimony, that amounted to about 11 inches, for him to go through for the purpose of finding more things for him to — Mmm — quote/unquote, recant or do whatever he was going to do.

There was total — I asked him, “How many things besides Wollersheim and the Lisa McPherson case, what else do they want you to do? Do you know when your leash is over with, where they get done with you? Okay, you think if you

442

destroy Ken, that will make you safe. But what else are they going to have you do? Do you know?”

He said he didn’t know, but this package represented six to seven other things that they wanted him to change testimony about or — or say something different about.

Q Did you see this package?

A Mmm, no.

Q How do you know it was 11 inches high?

A He told me.

Q Okay.

A And he also told me at that time that his attorney, Steve Jonas, told him not to meet with Scientology concerning that package without representation, but he was going to do it anyway —

Q Okay.

A — because he’s taking control.

Q Did you ever see any lawsuits that Mr. Minton was given where Scientology was suing him or contemplating suing him?

A He had a rough draft of a RICO suit that he showed me. It was about this thick.

Q How many inches is that?

A It was about maybe an inch, inch and a quarter, something like that. And he —

443

Q All right.

A — flipped through it like this. And he would never physically give it to me.

He said — and we all predicted they were going to do some crazy RICO thing. He said, “They finally did it. Here is the RICO thing. We already have the Armstrong thing. They are suing me for 80 million which I’ll be liable for, here is the — another RICO, that is another 110 million. They are adding me as a defendant in the breach of contract.

And,” he said, “I’m the only person with money. I have got to get out of this.”

Q Okay. Now, did you at any time tell Mr. Minton or Ms. Brooks that you were willing to meet with Scientology?

A Yes.

Q When was that?

A Mmm, at the Adam’s Mark Hotel when they — you know, what they call bringing me into the circle.

And I’m looking at these people that I have worked with for years and I might as well have been looking at strangers, because Stacy has this whole thing lined up.

She — you know, she knows exactly what is going to happen, who is going to do what. And Bob is kind of like following along because he’s just at his wit’s end.

And Stacy figures that she knew Mike Rinder for a long time and they were good friends and she’s just going to make this as good for Bob as possible.

444

And, to me, she just delivered Bob into the hands of his enemies.

Q Did Stacy Brooks ever — in all of the years you have known her, did she ever say to you, “I filed a false declaration or affidavit”?

A Never in a million years. To the contrary, Stacy is fully aware that part of, you know, Scientology’s intelligence operations are to get rid of the lawsuit in any way possible. You know, whether you actually have real evidence, get rid of it, or you manufacture it or you bring up enough threat where the person just wants to be done with it.

She knows this because it happened to her.

Q When?

A December of 1999 she did an affidavit about it, about the same people, Mr. Rinder, Mr. Sutter, coming in, wanting them to change testimony, offering money.

THE COURT: We have had testimony about that.

THE WITNESS: Yes. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, did she ever say — I just wanted to touch on that. Did she ever say that Mr. Rinder was actually telling her the truth about attacking Graham Berry and Graham Berry did something bad?

A No. But what she did mention to me, she said, “You know, after speaking with Mr. Rinder, you know, I

445

always thought in the Fishman case –” where she appeared as an expert, she said she always thought that because they tried to add Miscavige on as a party, that that made Scientology want to instantly settle because, you know,
hands off from Miscavige, he’s the ecclesiastical leader of the Church, Sea Org, on and on.

So she said that after speaking with Mr. Rinder, she came to realize that it wasn’t adding Miscavige that caused the suit to be settled in the way it was. After talking with Mr. Rinder she came to understand that it was because of the introduction of Scientology’s upper levels at which they commonly call it as being trade secrets that was the real issue at hand.

Q Okay. Did Stacy Brooks ever say that her affidavits that she filed about Mr. Rinder offering her and her husband over $200,000 to change their testimony — did she ever tell you that Mr. Rinder’s version of what her declaration should be was true versus what Mr. Berry had her sign?

A Mmm, no. We — I mean, I had read that information before that she had done this. And at this point in time at the Adam’s Mark Hotel, Stacy was not an obvious target. They were working on Bob Minton.

Q Okay.

A Stacy was incidental at that point.

446

Q All right.

A It wasn’t contemplated for her to change her testimony. It was Minton to do it.

Q Did you ever have a conversation with Bob Minton, for instance, let’s go to that night, the Adam’s Mark Hotel, where he’s talking about the $500,000 UBS check and what he told you in the parking lot about it?

A Oh, I brought that up to him. You know, they were saying, you know, “Ken is really going to get it. He told me to lie about this check.”

I said, “Wait a minute, Bob, let me remind you –“he and Stacy are like gleeful children, like all responsibility is gone. “Hee-hee. Guess what?”

“Are you insane? We were both on the parking lot. Bob got you and me out of the office, said he was giving this check to Ken, Ken didn’t know where it was coming from, told us it was from people from Europe. I mean, why are you gleefully now telling me somehow this is Ken’s fault?”

Q What did they say?

A They just looked at me like, “Oh, yeah, we forgot about that part.” Mmm, they were telling me things like, “We really got him now.”

I said, “But don’t you remember what we did?

Don’t you remember this is what really happened as opposed

447

to this story you are making up now? Do you remember what actually happened?”

Q What was their response?

A “Hmmm.” You know, just “Hmmm.” Like, “He’s not cooperating.”

Q So —

A So I told him, you know, “Now, you know we were up in the parking lot. We went through this whole thing. So now what do you want me to say what happened now, when this is what did happen? What am I supposed to do?”

THE COURT: What did he say?

THE WITNESS: He just looked at me like I was crazy. And they looked at each other and they changed the subject. We started talking about — Mmm — what else did we start talking about?

They brought up something else that — the meeting, yeah, oh, and the other thing they want — “they” being Rinder and Rosen, the other thing they want brought out is how Minton was supposedly at some meeting that happened where we all said, “Yeah, add Miscavige and don’t talk to anybody about it.” I am like, “Are you crazy? That didn’t happen either.”

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So when you told them it didn’t happen —

448

A Then they said, “Look, let’s stop talking about this. Let’s go to dinner. We’ve made some progress.”

But, on the other hand, I’m thinking, “I have to talk to somebody from Scientology about this,” because obviously I’m looking at Bob and Stacy, they are just convinced that I’m just going to to-to-to, go along with this. They are just convinced.

They are telling me — Stacy said, “Look, we’re going to do this, it is unpleasant, but we’ll put all this behind us. You won’t have worry — money problems anymore, you’ll have plenty of money, you’ll be taken care of, you know, and –”

THE COURT: Who was going to give you the money?

THE WITNESS: The same — your Honor, the same person that has been, Bob Minton. They have been taking care of everything.

(Discussion had off the record.)

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So this was — then you went out to dinner?

A Yes. We went out to dinner and we just kind of changed the subject because it was getting heated. You know, I’m trying to find a scintilla of logic of what is going on here. And I can’t — I can’t even imagine — I can’t even make myself imagine what they are talking about

449

here.

Then I told Bob, I said, “Bob, isn’t this strange –”

(Discussion had off the record.)

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So Bob Minton said —

A I keep losing my train of thought.

Q I know. Sorry. Maybe we should read it back.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

(Last answer read back by the reporter.)

THE WITNESS: Repeat the last line again.

(Last answer reread by the reporter.)

A I got it. Because I started talking to them, I said, “Well, look, we had further discussions about Wollersheim, too.”

And I said, “Well, you have loaned Lawrence money to continue his case. Now you’re going after him. You have given all of this money against Ken Dandar. Now you are going after him. Don’t you think it is obvious what has happened here? Don’t you think it is going to be obvious to all concerned that something bad happened here?”

His response was, you know, “I’m not convinced.

Stacy is convinced this is going to work, Jesse. I’m not convinced about it. And I feel bad what is going on with Ken.”

450

My thing was, okay, I have to talk to somebody about Scientology about this because obviously these two things — I have a ring in my nose and they have a leash. I have to let Scientology know they’re not going to get away with this, this is not going to work.

THE COURT: Who was it — you are saying you had the ring through your nose and they had a leash?

THE WITNESS: Yes, this is an analogy of what seemingly was in their minds.

THE COURT: “Their” meaning Bob Minton and Stacy Brooks?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Thought they had the leash and were leading you around.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: You thought you had to tell Scientology that wasn’t accurate?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

A So I’m going along now with this whole thing. I said, “Look,” I told them, “Okay, I’ll do it. Okay, I’ll do it. Tell me –” because they said, “We have to bring you in. You have to meet with Mike Rinder now. You have to meet him face-to-face and go over this and you are going to be happy like us.”

451

“Okay. Okay.”

I tell you, I left that Adam’s Mark Hotel and I felt like, “Oh, my God.” You know, I would rather be doing anything. But ultimately I came home and I told my fiance, I said, “Look, it is over. I can’t do it anymore. I have to let Ken know. I have to call somebody.”

So I called Frank Oliver and told him the whole story of what had been going on the whole time and told him to please tell Ken, and I’m so sorry what happened to him.

I sat in Judge Baird’s courtroom and it upset me greatly, and asked him to arrange for you and I to meet, at which point you called me and we met the Sunday.

And I was supposed to meet with Bob and Stacy and Mike Rinder that time. And I told them, “Yes, I’m going to go along with your plan.”

And as I state here in my affidavit and I said to you to your face, I just want to see Mike Rinder’s face when he finds out that this isn’t going to work if he thinks he’s going to use me to do this thing.

So we have that meeting —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q You and I had a meeting?

A You and I had the meeting. And Mr. Lirot was there.

Q Right. Right. And then you went to meet with Bob

452

and Stacy and, you thought, Mike Rinder?

A I thought Mike Rinder would be there. So what happens, now they moved hotels, they moved to the Radisson on Clearwater Beach. I guess they didn’t like the Adam’s Mark. So we are at the Radisson.

And he has this big sheaf of papers. And he said, “Jesse, you are unreal. Let me show you what Judge Schaeffer is saying about you.” And he read something that, to me, was totally uncomprehensible.

And he said, “See, she doesn’t trust you. You are not credible in her eyes. You are going to jail if you don’t do what we tell you to do.”

I said, “Bob, I think you’re the one going to jail. You’re the one lying. You’re the one that has already went in court and lied. And you want me to do it? I think you’re the one going to jail.”

Oh, my God, it gets hot. “Okay, let’s go down to dinner.”

Then I sit and I explained to them, I said, “Look, let me tell you specific experiences I have personally had making deals with Scientology. Let me tell you the results.”

I told them painstakingly some awful things if I even started to mention, I am sure Mr. Weinberg would be up in a flash.

453

MR. WEINBERG: No, your Honor, I would like to hear exactly what he said he told Mr. Minton about all these awful experiences.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay. Go ahead.

A I told him about the time I was removed from that position you saw me on the video with the sailor clothes, on and on. I told them about the circumstances about me being removed from there.

THE COURT: I’m not sure I saw that.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, it was the first day I was here, Miscavige introduces me, I’m telling him I’m from RTC and we are going to get the squirrels and what do the squirrels mean.

THE COURT: I remember.

MR. DANDAR: This is the New Year’s Eve speech.

THE COURT: Right. I remember now.

A Well, how I got removed from that position. I’m telling him the story where Miscavige wants to come in and get rid of Broeker because he thinks Broeker is crazy.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So you were caught in between Broeker and Miscavige?

A Yes. And I told them, either one, “I don’t want anything to do with either one of you,” because when I got

454

involved myself in doing illegal activities, with listening to wiretapping and, you know, all of this crazy stuff I’m being shown how to do, I’m cutting my teeth, I am being broken into OSA, this is no Scientology that I ever knew
anything about.

You know, I don’t want nothing to do with this part of it. I didn’t even know it happened where they do this stuff to people.

Mmm, and then, you know, they — because I didn’t go along with that, I’m woken up at 5 o’clock in the morning, there is — there is Miscavige standing there, there is Lymon Sperlock, Ray Mithoff, Mike Sutter, Greg Wilheir (phonetic), his brother, security guards. There are about 12 people there.

I walk into Miscavige’s office, and there is Vicki Aznaran, the person that used to be inspector general of RTC, just crying in the corner, crumpled. They are all in their Sea Org uniforms just like, grrr. And I’m running around with something that looks like pajamas.

And he told me, “You didn’t go along with this, you wouldn’t follow me, now you are going to the RPF. You call me sir. You have been disrespectful.”

I stood up and told him to go to hell and went and tried to leave, at which point they tried to grab me. And me and Judge Moody has been through this story before so I’m

455

not telling a new story.

And I ran to my bedroom and I got a Mini 14 assault rifle I had been given for my birthday from L. Ron, and a .45, loaded in both, went back to that office, and I have them like this (indicating). And now they are standing there like — oh, Norman Starkey was there. And Norman says, “Jesse, you traitor. You can’t kill us all.”

And I said, “Well, I’ll tell you what, maybe not, but you will certainly be the first to go.”

And I’m standing there with these guns. Then Miscavige, because he and I used to be very good friends, too, he and I were very good friends at one point in time, he came over and he said, “Jesse, look, this is horrible, let’s stop this.”

He knew I wasn’t going to do anything. He walked right up to me. He told all those other jerks, “Get out of here, I have got to talk to Jesse.”

So we go down to the ship and we have a conversation. And he tells me, “Jesse, I know this all seems horrible now, but I need you to take this fall. I need you to be a head on a pike.” Head on a pike is a term in Scientology where somebody takes a fall for Scientology.

Put a head on the pike means if you are going through the gate, you end up like this, head on the pike.

“I want you to be the head on the pike.” He

456

wanted me to go to RPF. You know, Vicky and Rick really screwed things up with the Broekers and conspired about him, yik-yik and on and on. And he said, “Look, this will be over, you’ll be restored to your position,” on and on.

“Oh, okay, Dave, I do it.” We talked. I willingly once again go to the damn concentration camp.

Once again. Like eighteen months wasn’t long enough. Now I’m in there again.

I stood up and walked out of that place, went to that base and said, “Look, if this is the way you want to play this, I’m going to the police, I’m going to go talk to them about what you do here.”

Oh, my God, all them issues are canceled. No, Jesse is good again. “Jesse, I’m sorry.” It is always someone’s fault, someone else acted in an unauthorized manner and put these things out.

Okay, he got rid of all of that stuff. I mean, I had to have something to show for being in Scientology 16 years. Every certificate I had — I had a wall from top to bottom, at least half of that, of everything I have ever done in Scientology used to be in my office.

And, Mmm, so I ended up going back to the RPF.

457

Oh, no, we straighten it all out again. That was one instance.

Just lying. Just can’t wait to get me in a position to where I am incapacitated to do something.

The second time I’m trying to leave Scientology, “Look, you guys can do this. Do whatever you want to do, you know. You want to do this activity? I don’t want to do it anymore. I just want to take me and my wife and leave, just be away.”

Well, of course that didn’t happen. I had to be degraded for four and a half months, locked up, sec-checked, told to divorce my wife. I have written about this, too. Finally, I leave.

THE COURT: What did you say, seg-checked?

THE WITNESS: Sec, security checked. Being interrogated on the E-meter.

A Well, what happens, as soon as I leave, they have someone that is a tail on me that works for this Scientology business who, because I won’t continue to do Scientology and their business, now I’m no good. You know, I have come in there and boomed that business. I was hired, I was on salary making $60,000 or $70,000 a year.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Are you talking about the artwork business?

A Yes, the artwork business.

458

would call me once or twice a week. Mike Sutter, RTC, “Jesse, how are you doing?”

So now they want me to do Scientology work where they want me to do cramming, do correction, yik-yik, on and on.

I said, “Look, I have left that. I’m not doing that anymore. Let me just do a regular job. I’m just doing a regular job now, not using the Scientology mess, and everything is going fine. You know, don’t fix something when it is not broke.”

No, that is not good enough, that gets reported to RTC. Now I have to get removed and now I have to go through endless crap.

It finally culminated losing my job, having to start my own business, being followed around every place in Minneapolis, because I travel a lot. Then one day I found a bag right outside my hotel room, like this (indicating), Rock cocaine.

THE COURT: How big?

THE WITNESS: Huh?

THE COURT: You are showing it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Tell —

A Like this (indicating).

THE COURT: Say for the record, is that the

459

size of a baseball?

THE WITNESS: About the size of a softball.

THE COURT: About the size of a softball?

THE WITNESS: With individually little crack cocaines.

A And I’m like, uh-uh, this is it.

So, to me, I’d already been through enough betrayal with Scientology. And I explained this to them.

THE COURT: This is just — all that cocaine just sitting outside your hotel room?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. And the fact of the matter is, your Honor, it is known that I had, you know, smoked marijuana before or whatever, but if anyone in my family — because my brother tried it — does cocaine, he did it, had a double aneurysm. I sat in the hospital a month while they cut off his dreadlocks, peeled his skin back, cut his scalp, went through his brain, cauterized two microscopic veins because his head exploded from fooling around with crap, and put it all back together.

And the reason they said it happened to him, something genetically in our family that makes those veins do that. What do I want to do with cocaine

460

for? It is just —

THE COURT: I think we’re far afield.

MR. WEINBERG: Is this what — all these incidents you told Mr. Minton?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I’m telling all this to Mr. Minton. I said, “In the end you may think –” and I told him, “As you sit here you can’t tell me when Scientology is going to be done with you. When are they going to be finished having you done whatever they want you to do? All you know, you have Wollersheim and you have McPherson.”

He said, “Jesse, you are being unreal.” He got mad. He cursed at me and said something. And his last words were, “Well, fuck it, you’re going to jail.”

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Did you use the same language back at him?

A I said, “Bob, I’m sorry, you’re going to jail.

Stacy, you’re going to jail. I’m not having anything to do with this.”

I got up — he asked me to leave. He said, “Get out.”

I said, “Fine.”

Stacy follows me in the parking lot. She said, “You know, after all of the things Bob has done for you,

461

this is how you treat him?”

I’m looking, “What in the hell has Bob done for me that I have to perjure myself, I have to become a criminal because he thinks this is what I got to do to save him?

Uh-uh. He’s not done anything for me. And there is only one person can sell my soul. That is me. I already sold my soul to this organization one time and I got it back. Bob Minton is in no position to offer my soul to them.”

And I told her that. And we really haven’t talked that much since.

Q Well, now, was there a point in time when Bob Minton was coming over to your house after that for barbecue?

A Well, again, we have been friends a long time. This was another bridge of disagreement, blowup, everybody cursing, but we have such history. Even as I sit here today, I can’t fathom not talking to him once or twice a week.

So, you know, we’re talking again.

“Look –” Stacy said, “Look, this is going to blow over with or without you. We’re going to make sure.”

So I said, “Okay, well, then if we’re not doing this, could we still be friends?”

They love to come over to the house. We barbecue and have little parties. “Sure.”

462

But then he called his lawyer and he was told not to come.

Q This is while the hearing is going on in this courtroom?

A Yes. They want to tell me what is going on. They want me to be a part of it because I have been since the beginning. But I can’t because of what they’re doing.

Q Did Bob Minton want to close down the LMT?

A No.

Q Whose idea was that?

A I don’t think it was any one person’s idea. Well, if it was anybody’s idea, I think it was Stacy’s, because the LMT was being used as a vehicle to get to Bob. And —

THE COURT: I think it sounds — this must be allowed to start at 4:30, but it is giving me a headache. Is this a good stopping point?

MR. WEINBERG: Yes — I’m sorry.

MR. DANDAR: This would be — this would be fine.

THE COURT: They probably are allowed to start up at 4:30.

MR. WEINBERG: I thought I was having a ringing in my ears, which I do have an ear issue.

Ten o’clock tomorrow. I think I told you this before, but if I didn’t, let me remind you: While you are on the witness stand, I did give you permission to speak with Mr. Dandar because of the long break, but now, like overnight, you and he can’t talk.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay? I mean, you can talk about something else, but you can’t talk anything about your testimony or about this case. Of course you can’t talk to the other side, you can’t talk to anybody while you are on the stand about this case or your testimony. Okay?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor, I understand that.

THE COURT: We shall be in recess.

MR. FUGATE: Judge, I have one issue on the E-Mails. And I’ll be really quick.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. FUGATE: There are, to my understanding, about 3,000 E-Mails. And during the break —

THE COURT: Have you-all come up with any agreement as to a list?

464

MR. FUGATE: That is what I want to talk to you about. I went over to see, there is a list that prints out all of the ones that they were able to recover from the various hard drives. And I have found a series of — on that list of E-Mails that related to Peter Alexander and Patricia Greenway, and I have left a list of those with Mr. Keane.

And then I understand that Mr. Dandar indicated that those shouldn’t be produced because Ms. Greenway is a consultant. And, you know, in this hearing he said she wasn’t.

I don’t really care what she is today. But back during the time that she was at LMT prior to this hearing beginning, which is where all these E-Mails generate from, I don’t think they would be covered as a consultant —

THE COURT: Counsel, I can’t deal with something that won’t be agreed to with this noise. That is why I stopped this hearing. We’ll take this up first thing in the morning, and hopefully we won’t have any noise and we’ll get it done then.

Ten o’clock tomorrow. Bring it to my attention then.

MR. FUGATE: All right.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you all.

465

(WHEREUPON, Court is adjourned at 4:50 p.m.)

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

I, LYNNE J. IDE, Registered Merit Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the proceedings herein, and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes.

I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any of the parties’ attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in the action.

Mr. Prince, you’re already under oath. So you understand that the oath that you took will be valid throughout your testimony.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: All right. Would you please resume the stand?

Let me make sure, before we start, that I’ve got the right book.

Give me just a minute, Mr. Dandar.

0192

Hugh Haney? Was that the last witness?

MR. DANDAR: Brian —

THE COURT: Brian.

MR. DANDAR: Hugh Brian —

THE COURT: Brian.

MR. DANDAR: Hugh Brian Haney.

THE COURT: Okay. I wrote down Hugh. Hugh Brian?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. He goes by Brian.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. I’ve got the right book. I’m ready.

Mr. Bailiff, before we start, is this coffee — I mean — coffee — see, I was thinking of coffee. That’d be nice. Maybe you’ll bring me some. Is this water fresh?

THE BAILIFF: I’m not sure, your Honor.

MR. WEINBERG: I would say that would be —

MR. FUGATE: — a “no.”

THE COURT: That’s what I would say.

Would you mind?

No telling how long that’s been sitting in there. You know what he’ll do? It’ll have mold on it. He’ll go — pour it out — Thank you very much.

When this trial comes — because I will let you

0193

all have water during the trial. Not coffee, once we get to a trial —

MR. WEINBERG: Right.

THE COURT: — just water.

But I’m going to get me a little cooler and keep it up here. Because I don’t trust them — I can’t ask every day. Just one of the tiny little things that needs to be done.

And by the way, Mr. Dandar —

MR. DANDAR: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: — if I might just suggest, I did notice in that article that you were quoted. The truth of the matter is, this is an ongoing case. It would be well for you not to be quoted in these articles.

MR. DANDAR: I do not believe that I or Mr. Prince gave an interview for that article.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: I think — I think the reporter is quoting from in-court testimony.

THE COURT: If that’s the case, then we can’t help that.

But — but do not — and I’m not going to tell the lawyers how they ought to be lawyers, because you know, part of the — part of the canons say one

0194

ought not to be talking to the press about their case while it’s ongoing.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

THE COURT: That would be like you all having some comment for me. I don’t think you would be appreciative of that.

MR. DANDAR: I do —

That’s what happens to me — off the record?

Can we go off the record for just a second?

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Madam Reporter?

THE REPORTER: Yes, ma’am.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: All right. Back on the record.
___________________________________

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. Mr. Prince, two weeks ago, we talked about your position with the Religious Technology Center; you getting these eyes-only reports on ongoing investigations involving litigation and other critics of Scientology.

A This is a document — a document written by L. Ron Hubbard concerning intelligence. And it speaks about predicting trouble before it occurs, investigating individuals for crimes, and prosecuting the individuals.

And this all has to do with people who Scientology perceives to be enemies or suppressive persons.

Q Against whom? They’re enemies of whom?

A These are perceived enemies of Scientology. These are the actions that are done against perceived enemies of Scientology.

Q On the — it’s a one-page document. The third paragraph talks about a standard, is to — when you’re under attack, you attack back. Does that have anything to do with the prior document where you — where it mentioned, and you explained to the judge two weeks ago, manufacturing evidence if there’s no crimes found?

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I object to all this, your Honor.

First of all, this is a 1968 thing.

Secondly, I just want to let the record be clear again as to our position about Mr. Prince interpreting policy. He was booted out of the church — booted out of the position in 1987; left in disgrace from the church; has been — has been —

0196

has been, you know, paid to testify against the church. And now he’s coming in here trying to interpret policies; one a 1968 thing that doesn’t say anything about creating or manufacturing evidence and saying that — trying to interpret it?

I — I object to that.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Does this policy have anything to do with the prior policy that you identified two weeks ago, and explained to the court about, if you can’t find the crimes of the attacker, you manufacture the crimes?

A Yes. This is part and parcel of the activities of the intelligence department in different Scientology organizations.

Q What does that mean in that third paragraph from the bottom, attack loudly?

A You know, I think we must be looking at a different — I must be looking at a different document than you.

Q I hope not.

A Where did you see that –Oh, I see, okay. Yes. Okay.

Q What does that mean, attack loudly?

A Noisy investigation.

0197

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me, your Honor. What he’s saying is what it means to him?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: As opposed to what it means?

THE COURT: That’s what he’s saying.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Within your experience and your position of the inspector general RTC worldwide, tell us what that understanding — what you’re understanding of that means.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, see —

A This would mean —

MR. WEINBERG: That, I object to. If he wants to sit up there and say what it means to him, that’s one thing. If he wants to sit up there and say, “This is Jesse Prince and this is what this policy means to a Scientologist,” that’s nonsense. And that isn’t right.

And that’s what’s been going on for — for — you know, with Mr. Prince and Mr. Young and other people that used to be in the — in the church. It’s not right. They shouldn’t be up here trying to interpret for the — for the religion of Scientology, what policy is.

THE COURT: That’s not even your argument; that’s the argument of the First Amendment scholar.

0198

And I have let him preserve that argument —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — and it is preserved. And your objection therefore is overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: Because quite frankly, if I don’t agree with his position, this would be relevant to this, and it would be relevant probably to your counterclaim.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Your Honor, I guess that means I should be objecting to —

THE COURT: No. Because I’ve allowed you to preserve a continuing objection.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Right. I understand that, your Honor.

But the point is, from the First Amendment point of view, to even let this kind of testimony in creates an untenable position for the church. Because if we — if we merely preserve our position, then we’re put in the position of, do we have to counter it? To counter it, we would then have to engage in a process which we shouldn’t have to constitutionally, which would be incredibly burdensome on us and on the court.

Because in order to understand Scientology

0199

policies, you can’t take one and look at it in isolation, and have somebody who was not — who was — who was basically removed from his position —

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. LIEBERMAN: — by the church —

THE COURT: But he was there. And he was there. And he presumably was high up in the scale. And he presumably knew what was going on, whether he was removed or not.

I’ve therefore ruled he’s qualified.

If you want to withdraw your motion, saying there was no basis in fact or law, and it was a fraudulent claim to file this lawsuit, then I will agree with you.

You filed the motion in this hearing. I think it’s relevant, quite frankly, and I think no matter what your First Amendment argument is going to be, I’m going to allow it in for this hearing. It’s your motion. That’s why I said I think you’re going to have some distinctions that I’m going to be willing to draw for different things. You do whatever you want to do for this motion. I’ve allowed you to preserve it. Your objection is preserved. You can argue it. Quite frankly, you

0200

may lose that motion for this hearing, as long as you have filed the motion you have filed.

You’ve made your argument. I’m ready to move on.

This is not somebody who was not in the church. This is not some scholar outside. This is somebody who was there, who says, “This is what we did.”

MR. LIEBERMAN: I know, your Honor. And he also was — was removed —

THE COURT: Well, then —

MR. LIEBERMAN: — from his position —

THE COURT: — do it on cross examination.

MR. LIEBERMAN: — for not being a Scientology expert; for being the opposite of a Scientology expert by the authority that had the ability to determine who are — who is capable, who is proper to speak for Scientology.

THE COURT: You know, the only thing I can suggest is, by all the argument that I hear from you all about Jesse Prince, you must be really frightened of him.

You’ve made your point. We’re going to move on.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, this third paragraph, third

0201

paragraph on Exhibit 113 states,

“Even if you don’t have enough data to win the case, still attack loudly. Reason is, it is only those people that have crimes that will attack us, and they will soon back off for fear of being found out when attacked back.”

Is this considered a scripture of the Church of Scientology?

A During — during my tenure in Scientology, this document was not considered to be any type of scripture. This was a training material to train a person in intelligence activities as practiced in Scientology.

Q Okay. Now, before the objection, you were talking about — answering the question about if this relates to the noisy investigation when this document, in the third paragraph from the bottom, speaks of or uses the word “loudly.”

A Yeah.

Q And what is a noisy investigation?

A A noisy investigation — I believe we covered that the first day I gave testimony, and we actually submitted the document in the church. But it’s basically to go around and arouse the neighbors and the friends and associates of a person that Scientology perceives to be an enemy, and make allegations about the person that may or may not be true. And according

0202

to Scientology’s Manual of Justice, which is a further document, that gives the exact procedure by which you go through to terrorize someone through investigation, noisy investigation, investigating loudly is certainly a part of it.

MR. WEINBERG: Object to the use of the word “terrorism” or “terrorize.” I mean, that’s just —

THE COURT: I didn’t hear him say that. Did he say that?

MR. WEINBERG: That’s what he said.

MR. DANDAR: Use it to terrorize the person who is attacking the Church of Scientology.

THE COURT: Overruled. I’m not thinking of that as terrorism; I’m thinking of that as just simply a word.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, that’s fine. But I’m a little sensitive, after reading this article this morning, where — or yesterday morning, where Osama Bin Laden and David Miscavige were mentioned in the same sentence.

MR. DANDAR: Take that up with the St. Pete Times.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, no, I —

THE COURT: Well, that was mentioned by Mr. Minton.

0203

MR. WEINBERG: Who — who — let’s make it clear — is not our witness, and is a person that has — that has worked very closely with Mr. Dandar from — from the beginning of this lawsuit.

THE COURT: I hate to tell you this, Counselor, but he is your witness.

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

THE COURT: You called him.

MR. WEINBERG: — your Honor, that’s where we disagree. But I’m not here to argue with that.

THE COURT: No.

MR. WEINBERG: We disagree about that.

We called him as a witness.

THE COURT: You can disagree all you want. You called him as a witness. I did not declare him a hostile or adverse witness. It appeared as if he was able to respond to your questions without leading questions.

You called him in this hearing as your witness.

MR. WEINBERG: But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Minton is — Well —

THE COURT: It does seem to be a lot ado about nothing, doesn’t it?

I understand about the article. That was

0204

Mr. Minton who said —

MR. WEINBERG: My —

THE COURT: — that.

MR. WEINBERG: — objection had to do with Mr. Prince saying “terrorize,” which is — which is —

THE COURT: Well, your objection’s overruled.

He can use the word “terrorize” if that’s the word he wants to use. That has nothing to do, in my opinion, with a terrorist attack. “Terrorize” is just a word. We use it all the time. Don’t be so sensitive.

Golly, we’ve got to get down into getting back into — stop being so sensitive.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In your experience in — in RTC, in Scientology, how do you go about finding or manufacturing threats against the critics?

A Well, there’s several ways that I’ve — I’ve seen it done —

THE COURT: And I’m sorry. When I indicated about the —

Excuse me.

When I indicated about the motion to dismiss, what I also meant to say is that this is relevant to this hearing because of Mr. Minton and the

0205

allegations that Mr. Minton has been extorted for his testimony. So for that reason as well, I think it’s admissible in this hearing.

Forget what I said about — I — I haven’t gotten my head back into this case.

MR. WEINBERG: My head was doing fine until I read the paper yesterday and then I got all upset.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q So —

THE COURT: I’m sorry, Mr. Prince. I interrupted you.

Madam Court Reporter, read back that question before I interrupted him.

THE REPORTER: The pending question is, “In your experience in RTC, in Scientology, how do you go about finding or manufacturing threats against the critics?”

The witness began to answer, “Well, there’s several ways that I’ve — I’ve seen it done –”

A Yes.

As far as out-and-out manufacturing information — And again, I want to clarify that. During the time that I was in RTC, the greater part of my history in Scientology certainly had to do with what it calls

0206

technology, which is the delivery of auditing and training of things.

Now, when I got in RTC, I began to learn about this other aspect of Scientology, which had been hidden from me until that point. So I — I actually had a very short amount of time there. But as what I’ve seen as far as manufacturing information to nullify a critic, a person — Rick Aznaran took a private investigator over to Taiwan to investigate a fellow named John Nelson. John Nelson used to be a person that was the CO — the commanding officer of Sea Org —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

A — International.

MR. WEINBERG: Hearsay, your Honor. How’s he know this?

THE WITNESS: Because I was there.

MR. WEINBERG: You were in Hong Kong?

THE WITNESS: No. I was on the phone with the parties.

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Were you in charge of the parties?

A Yes. The party was working in one of my divisions.

At any rate, Rick Aznaran flew to Taiwan with a

0207

private investigator to investigate a fellow named John Nelson, who used to be in a very high position in Scientology. He was the commanding officer of CMO.

THE COURT: At what?

THE WITNESS: The commanding officer of the Commodores Messenger Organization.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And that was an elite organization?

A At the time, it was located at Gilman Hot Springs, which eventually became Church of Scientology International. CSI.

Q All right.

A And he had started his own splinter organization with another fellow named David Mayo. At any rate, he was perceived to be a great enemy by Scientology. So he was on a business trip in Taiwan. Rick Aznaran, along with the private investigator, rented a room next door to his, electronically bugged his room so that they would know when he was coming and going; and when he left, subsequently put heroin in his room. And the plan was to call the police when he came, to say he was a — a heroin dealer, to get him turned in for this heroin package.

I found out about that because the private investigator that was working with Mr. Aznaran called back to the United States. I was on the phone. He said, “Look,

0208

this is going down. Over here in Taiwan, if a person gets convicted as a heroin dealer, they get the death sentence.”

I was not going to be a party to anything like that; neither did the private investigator. He was coming back. I immediately informed my senior, who was Vicki Aznaran. We conferenced with Mr. Miscavige on the situation and immediately had Mr. Aznaran come back and be away — not to do that particular operation.

This was an instance of manufacturing information that I know of, that I was personally involved in and had personal knowledge of. I’ve heard other things about that.

And of course, that would be hearsay, as Mr. —

Q Well, what year was this?

A That this occurred?

Q Yes.

A This happened in 1985.

Q Okay. Okay. And in your position, though, at RTC, you would hear about many operations against critics or perceived enemies of Scientology, is that right?

A Perceived enemies of Scientology is a — is — is what would correctly define — as opposed to critics.Because there was — you know, critics wasn’t a word that we used in Scientology when I was there. “Oh, this person’s a critic.” That’s not a word that we would use in Scientology. We would use this person is a suppressive.

0209

This person is attacking Scientology. But it wasn’t — this whole critic thing didn’t come into being, I believe, until after I even left Scientology.

Q All right. Well, what about the enemies of Scientology? What other examples can you give us where you have personal knowledge as to the operations that were going on?

A The other partner of this fellow, his name was David Mayo. He was the actual author of the NOTS Materials, the NED for OTs. And he —

THE COURT: Of the what materials?

THE WITNESS: NED for OTs materials. This is the — this is the —

MR. DANDAR: NOTS.

THE WITNESS: In Scientology, this is OT4, 5, 6 and 7.

THE COURT: What does the N mean on the front of that?

THE WITNESS: New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans. And it’s an acronym, NED.

MR. DANDAR: NED.

THE WITNESS: NED.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, objection. No foundation for any of this testimony. I mean, that David Mayo wrote this? Based on what?

0210

THE COURT: I’m sorry. I didn’t understand. I thought he was talking about the NOTS. I’ve seen that in some of the literature.

MR. DANDAR: Yes. That’s what he was —

MR. WEINBERG: But what —

MR. DANDAR: — talking —

THE COURT: I just simply asked what it — what it meant.

MR. WEINBERG: No — all right.

But what he said before that was — that prompted your question — was that David Mayo had actually been the author of the NOTS Materials, OT, whatever it is.

MR. DANDAR: You know, this is great for cross examination, but it’s really interrupting the flow of the direct.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me.

There was an entire proceeding in California about all this.

THE COURT: Well, I’m going to allow it.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How do you know that David Mayo is the author of NOTS, since Mr. Weinberg wants to know?

A Because it’s — the NOTS Materials, as I saw them in 1985 — each and every one of them had his signature or

0211

his initials on each page of the issues of the various NED for OTs issues. I think at the time there was 55 of them. So 55 little signatures of David Mayo, who wrote these materials. This is what I base that opinion on.

Q And he was a Scientologist at the time he wrote them, correct?

A He was a senior CS international at the time he wrote that.

Q And he worked closely with Mr. Hubbard, correct?

A He was Mr. Hubbard’s auditor, correct.

Q All right. So what happened — what was the operation against Mr. Mayo?

A Well, he was the other partner of John Nelson.

And what was done to him was they had rented a place, a business place, office complex. They were on the first floor. Scientology PIs rented the office directly above his office and electronically bugged the downstairs area. Also, a fellow named Bob Mithoff, who is the brother of Ray Mithoff, who is the current senior CS Int —

(The reporter asked for clarification.)

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.

A — was the current senior CS Int, sent in as a deep undercover operative, as well as Carolyn Letkerman, as well as Nancy Mainy.2

And the purpose of these deep cover operatives

0212

were to divine the legal strategies of the Advanced Abilities Center to provide information about financial accounts, how much money the place was making. They stole the mailing list for the place. It was turned over to the Religious Technology Center. And they were basically sent in there to not only glean information but to disrupt activities, covertly disrupt activities.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could we date this, and could Mr. Prince tell us what the basis — what his —

THE COURT: Yes. What was the year?

MR. WEINBERG: — of the information is?

THE WITNESS: This, I believe, was 1985. It was Wollersheim 4, where I actually testified in a hearing in front of Judge Mariana Phaelzer3 ultimately. And on March 15th — not March 15th, but somewhere around that time period. This all had to do with the Wollersheim case.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And when you testified in front of a judge on Wollersheim 4, who were you testifying for?

A Church of Scientology — Religious Technology Center.

THE COURT: You testified for the Religious Technology Center that the — that someone from the

0213

Church of Scientology went into —

THE WITNESS: No, no, no, your Honor.

THE COURT: — this man’s place and —

THE WITNESS: No. I —

THE COURT: — stole —

MR. DANDAR: Wait —

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: — his mailing list and —

THE WITNESS: No, no. No. That’s not what I testified to.

What I testified to was the fact that the materials that were being used in the Advanced Abilities Center were identical, basically, to the ones that the church had owned and copyrighted.

THE COURT: I see. So he — this Mr. David Mayo was another person who kind of broke off and was in a splinter group.

THE WITNESS: Yes. He was — he was kicked out of Scientology.

As a matter of fact, I think I brought the document with me today that — that shows why he was kicked out of Scientology.

And when he left he started his own movement, basically.

THE COURT: Okay.

0214

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What’s the name of that document?

THE COURT: Was he — was he —

A RTC Conditions Order Number 1.

THE COURT: Was he — was he with Mr. Nelson?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: They were part of the same splinter group?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I see.

MR. DANDAR: Your Honor — I’ll tell you what —

MR. WEINBERG: Could we just have Mr. Prince say what the basis for his testimony was, whether it’s hearsay or did he give these alleged orders to — to —

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: — break in and bug and —

THE COURT: How did you know about this?

THE WITNESS: I knew about this because the — the people that were doing the activities were in a division in RTC that I supervised.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And the — the people that were involved — I can tell you specifically the names of

0215

this person. Gary Klinger, who was our intelligence officer in RTC.

THE COURT: Who was “our”? “Our”?

THE WITNESS: I’m sorry. RTC.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Jeff Schriver.

THE COURT: So you were supervising the people who were doing this?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: There’s your foundation. I mean, that’s the foundation.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I only have — I haven’t copied this yet, but I want him to identify it. We have the copier in the jury room so it doesn’t cause any noise. And then we’ll copy it. But this is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 114.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify that?

MR. DANDAR: Then we’ll have it copied.

A This is the first Religious Technology Center Conditions Order, which is a committee of evidence, actually. And it lists — one, two, three, four, five, six, 24 seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 — has 16 individuals listed on this document, of people that are

0216

receiving a justice action. These are people that were once in management, in Scientology, prior to 9 October, 1982. So David Mayo here was the senior CS international. He’s on this document. And this is the document that lists all of their supposed and alleged crimes.

And the people that constituted the committee that would determine their guilt or innocence on this crime composed of — one, two, three, four, five, six — seven people.

And the chairman was Ray Mithoff. The secretary was Shelly Miscavige. That’s David Miscavige’s wife. A member was Laura Marlowe. Laura Marlowe was Commander Steve Marlowe’s wife, who — at the time, he was a commander of the Religious Technology Center. And then is myself, Jesse Prince. Then there’s Gelda Mithoff, who’s the wife of Ray Mithoff, and Matt Pesch and Mark Fisher. Matt Pesch was a security guard. Mark Fisher was a personal assistant to David Miscavige.

And this committee was charged with finding — and this was basically what is constituted all of in management — to, you know, basically do another housecleaning or purging, as has happened in Scientology a time or two.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I’d like to go ahead and

0217

have this copied, and I’ll distribute it. Is that all right?

THE COURT: Sure.

Did you mark it?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. It’s 114.

MR. WEINBERG: I have an objection to relevance. I haven’t looked at it yet. But what’s the relevance of a 1982 —

THE COURT: I don’t know.

MR. WEINBERG: — religious justice action against people?

THE COURT: I can only assume that this is part of Mr. Dandar’s case regarding his allegations of threats, extortions or whatever it is he’s alleging about.

MR. WEINBERG: That may be. But Mr. Minton was never a Scientologist so Mr. Minton didn’t — didn’t — didn’t undergo any committee of evidence or Scientology justice action.

I just don’t understand the relevance.

THE COURT: What is the relevance?

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: No. Not you.

THE WITNESS: Oh.

MR. DANDAR: Mr. Prince, who Mr. Weinberg

0218

called a janitor, is on this committee of evidence, with the other top Int management people, on a committee of evidence against David Mayo, who is the author of this highly secretive NOTS material. And it just shows Mr. Prince’s involvement in the higher echelons of Scientology.

THE COURT: So this is — this is just to show that he’s got some — what, that is — that he — is — is capable of testifying as an expert here?

MR. DANDAR: Yes. And —

THE COURT: Well, I’ve already accepted him as an expert.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. But it also goes to the policy bulletin on intelligence actions, which he — which is the basis of this testimony before we reached that document.

THE COURT: All right. Then I suppose it may have some relevance. I don’t know.

MR. WEINBERG: How does it go to that?

THE COURT: I don’t know. I mean, I have to believe some of the things the lawyers say.

MR. DANDAR: Let me show our next exhibit.This is in a series of, like, three or four documents on this subject. And then we’ll get on to a different matter.

0219

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Plaintiff’s Exhibit 115, Mr. Prince. Can you identify that?

A Yes. This is a confidential issue that goes along with intelligence actions, noisy investigation, the Manual of Justice and other issues that really gives the attitude of how to go about taking apart a perceived enemy. It kind of gives the thought process, the — the basis of it. It comes from Klausewitz.

Q Again, this is entitled Battle Tactics. This is directed against the enemies of Scientology?

A Correct.

Q And then the third — actually, the fourth paragraph from the bottom it states — states, quote, One cuts off enemy communications, funds, connections. This policy letter goes to — applies to former Scientologists as well as someone who’s an — an enemy, who has never been a Scientologist?

A It could be anyone Scientology perceives as a — as an enemy.

THE COURT: Is this again what you call a suppressive person?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Or a suppressive group.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: And this talks about cutting off

0220

enemy communications, funds, connections; deprive the enemy of political advantages, connections and power. He takes over enemy territory; he raids and harasses. All on a thought plane —

THE COURT: Okay. You don’t have to read it to me, Mr. Prince. I —

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: — can read.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, on page 2, the second paragraph states, “Legal is a slow if often final battle arena. It eventually comes down to legal in the end. If intelligence and PRO have done well, then legal gets an easy win, close quote. What is PRO?

A Public relations officer.

Q And intelligence is what?

A Intelligence is the intelligence branch or department or division of Scientology organizations. Intelligence having to do with the prediction. Again, it goes back to this issue we have here, intelligence actions. The purpose of intelligence is to predict trouble, basically, before it occurs. And it states that in the issue.

So intelligence would predict or would start filing, start indexing, start doing this overt data collection, covert data collection, amass as much

0221

information about the situation as possible, then proceed accordingly.

Q That’s the — does that include the use of the private investigators?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Let me show you Exhibit 116.

THE COURT: While you’re doing that, can you all tell me whether or not a document called Middle — well, it’s something filed by Middle District of Florida, Complaint for Copyright infringement, Courage Productions versus Stacy Brooks — is that an exhibit in this hearing?

MR. WEINBERG: I believe so.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Not anymore?

MR. LIROT: It wasn’t one of our exhibits.

MR. WEINBERG: No. It was one of our exhibits.

THE COURT: Okay. Petition to Define Scope of Accounting and to Require Expedited Accounting?

MR. WEINBERG: I don’t think that is.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I think it was just the complaint.

THE COURT: Okay.

0222

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, what is 116?

A 116 is a document in the same vein of the documents we’ve been studying before. It’s the public investigation section. And this basically has to do with — “investigates attacking individual members and see the results of the investigation, get adequate legal and publicity.”

So this again is similar to what we’ve gone over here before.

Q So it’s in a series of the other exhibits on how to deal with perceived enemies of Scientology?

A Correct.

Q Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 117, entitled Attacks on Scientology. What is that?

A Again, same year, same type of policy letter. It talks about dealing with attacks on Scientology. “An attack on Scientology –” well, you know, the basic principle is, never agree with the attack on Scientology; attack the attacker. That kind of thing.

Q Now, these were written in the mid- to late ’60s.

Were they still in effect when you were in your management position at RTC?

A Very much so. And they’re still in effect today.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me. Objection, your

0223

Honor. Based on what?

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And how do you know they’re still in effect today?

A Because of that time track that was submitted into this courtroom of specific things that have — that have occurred to Mr. Minton over a period of years; over specifically what has happened to me because of my involvement in this case and other cases.

MR. WEINBERG: Same objection. Lack of foundation.

THE COURT: I think that he might can draw that inference, but I suspect he can’t testify that that is in fact what’s happening today. But he can infer that, I think.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Minton — Mr. Prince, have any of the — these policies come into play in the — Pinellas County in the past?

MR. WEINBERG: Based on his experience while he was in the church? Is that what you’re asking?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: You mean while he was there?

MR. DANDAR: No. Based upon his experience.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, then, I object. Come into

0224

play in Pinellas County?

THE COURT: If he’s talking about what occurred to him? Is that what you’re —

MR. DANDAR: No. What occurred to non-Scientologists in Pinellas County, orchestrated by the Church of Scientology in the past years. Before Mr. Minton arrived on the scene.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

THE COURT: How does he know that?

MR. DANDAR: Well, let me just use these exhibits then. I can see if he can qualify to talk about them.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. DANDAR: I probably gave you the wrong exhibit, but — I withdraw the question. And I’m just going to go to another question. I had the wrong exhibit in my hand.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, can you identify Plaintiff’s Exhibit 118?

A Yes. This is similar to RTC Conditions Order Number 1, in that it’s an ethics order that declare — one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11 — 12 people to be suppressive persons.

0225

Q Paragraph numbered 4 says, “They are fair game.” What does this have to do with?

A Fair game?

Q Yeah. What’s this exhibit have to do with?

A This exhibit has to do with people that used some version of what Scientology perceived to be as upper-level materials and started some type of distribution of those materials, and for this they were labeled suppressive.

Q All right. And —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, again, objection. What does this have to do with this case? If the Church of Scientology, within its internal structure, just like the Catholic church, declares somebody, in their language, a suppressive, you know, because they did something against the church; like, you know, attempt to — to take the — the scripture and change it — what’s that got to do with this hearing?

THE COURT: I think —

MR. WEINBERG: Has nothing to do with this hearing.

THE COURT: Well, it does have something to do with this hearing. And if you don’t understand it, then I’ll have to explain it to you.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

0226

THE COURT: It is very clear that the assertion being made is that Mr. Minton was a suppressive person; that Mr. Minton was subject to all of these things, including finding out all of the crimes that he may have committed, and bring it to his attention. That is the allegation of extortion.

MR. WEINBERG: These are people that are Scientologists, that are being declared pursuant — at the time, 1968 — being declared pursuant to the Scientology religious practices, under their justice system. Mr. Minton’s not a Scientologist.

THE COURT: There’s no question in my mind that, according to the matters that have been brought to this hearing, that Mr. Minton would have been considered a suppressive person.

MR. WEINBERG: But he’s putting in a document that — that says pursuant to church policy, these Scientologists are — are getting a certain justice action. That’s what that is. I mean, he doesn’t have personal knowledge. This is 1968, before he ever was in the church.

THE COURT: But you remember that the testimony has been that when Mr. Hubbard wrote something, it was followed. And it wasn’t changed. And it would be a high crime to change the writings of

0227

Mr. Hubbard.

You know, we don’t change the Bible just because times change. I presume you don’t change the writings of Mr. Hubbard. I mean, that is about as clear as anything I know.

MR. WEINBERG: To suggest that — that there is only one interpretation —

THE COURT: Nobody said there was one —

MR. WEINBERG: — of 50 words that are written —

THE COURT: Nobody said there is one interpretation. This is something that —

MR. WEINBERG: — is preposterous.

THE COURT: — that Mr. Hubbard wrote.

MR. WEINBERG: That has to do with an internal justice action with regard to Scientologists, in 1968.

THE COURT: I see the relevance, Counselor.

Apparently you don’t. I do. It’s this hearing. I think it’s relevant to this hearing. And it’s coming in. Take it up. Make your objection. It’s made, take —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — it to the appellate court. Do

0228

whatever you want to do. Your objection is overruled.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is this document 118 strictly internal?

A This issue would have been published internally, but it would have gone out — but it’s something that would have been put in each organization so that they would know who these suppressive persons are. The purpose of these ethics orders — one of the purposes of these ethics orders is, when they’re issued, for everyone to have a copy, so that the same people couldn’t then walk into an organization and pretend to be Scientologists in good standing and — and wreak further havoc on the organization —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor —

A — if that’s what’s —

MR. WEINBERG: — that’s not —

A — Scientology —

MR. WEINBERG: — that’s not — objection.

(Simultaneous speakers.)

MR. WEINBERG: He cannot authenticate this document. I believe this document, for whatever it’s worth, is a forgery. But he can’t authenticate

0229

it. He’s just guessing. He’s speculating. He wasn’t there when it was published. If it was published.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, how did you obtain this document?

THE COURT: Yeah. Where did you get it?

THE WITNESS: This document was provided to me by Vaughn Young.

THE COURT: So you did not receive this document or see this document when you were in the church.

THE WITNESS: No.

THE COURT: Then that objection is sustained and it will not be admitted.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, Mr. Prince, does this have the — does this appear to be a genuine document?

THE COURT: Well, that —

A Absolutely.

THE COURT: That isn’t going to get it. He can’t — he can’t authenticate something that was given to him by Mr. Young. I mean, this is not quite the same as some of these other things that I’ve seen — this is something called — I mean, I don’t know if this is authentic or not. Some of the

0230

other things that all look like the same, then I’m going to allow it in, necessarily, without his authenticating.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: But this is different. So 118 is out.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 119. Can you identify this, please?

A Yes. This is a policy letter dated 3 February, 1966, and it concerns illegal tax accounting and those activities within the Scientology organization.

Q You highlighted the first paragraph under the caption Illegal Officer? Why did you do that? A Because I think that it, again, just like these other issues that we’ve seen, goes along in the same vein, in that Scientology will do anything to protect itself, including what it says it’ll do here: Create the greatest possible confusion and loss to an individual, to a government or whoever to protect Scientology.

MR. DANDAR: Your Honor, I move Exhibits 113 through 117 into evidence, skipping over 118, and I move 119 into evidence.

THE COURT: I’m going to receive those.

0231

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince —

MR. FUGATE: Judge, I have an objection. And I know —

THE COURT: And I’m not going to hear from Mr. Weinberg and from you and from counsel from New York. I mean, there’s three lawyers at the table. It isn’t going to happen. So you sit down.

Mr. Weinberg’s making the objections. Or Mr. Weinberg, you defer to Mr. Fugate? Which is it going to be?

MR. FUGATE: Mr. Weinberg’s witness, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

Occasionally I will hear from our First Amendment expert, occasionally.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you —

MR. LIEBERMAN: I’ll exercise restraint, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. LIEBERMAN: But there are times when —

THE COURT: I’m sure.

MR. LIEBERMAN: — I may try —

0232

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Plaintiff’s Exhibit 120, Mr. Prince?

A Yes.

Q Can you identify that?

A Yes.

THE COURT: Please remember this is a most unusual hearing that we’re having.

A This is a document that explains — a confidential document written by someone in the Guardian’s Office, which was the predecessor of the Office of Special Affairs, concerning — the mayor, Gabe Cazares.

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Of course, Mr. Cazares wasn’t a Scientologist, right?

A Correct.

Q So these actions — do the actions we just previously introduced into evidence have anything to do with the actions taken by the Church of Scientology against Mayor Cazares?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. He has no — he has no knowledge — he was never in the Guardian’s Office. We’ve heard a lot of testimony about the Guardian’s Office, all of which is that Mr. Miscavige came in and eliminated it because of

0233

its misconduct. This is a 1976 document. There’s no way he can authenticate it. God knows where he got this one and who gave it to him.

THE COURT: Where did you get this?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this was, I believe, on our Internet site — not ours — on the Lisa McPherson Trust Internet site.

THE COURT: And —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Is this from the evidence in the Washington, D.C. prosecution?

A Yes.

THE COURT: What Washington, D.C. prosecution?

THE WITNESS: This was — I believe this was an exhibit in the D.C. case —

MR. DANDAR: Mary —

THE WITNESS: — where the 11 defendants were —

MR. DANDAR: The Mary Sue Hubbard case, the Guardian’s Office; people who broke into the FBI and other public government buildings and were prosecuted. Mr. Franks talked about this —

MR. WEINBERG: So —

THE COURT: Excuse me.

0234

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, Mr. Dandar likes to throw allegations around. One that he did throw around was David Miscavige murdered or caused the murder of Lisa McPherson, which he has not addressed, and he needs to address it. But this Guardian’s Office stuff has nothing to do with this hearing. Nothing. They were — they were — whatever they did wasn’t authorized by Mr. Hubbard, wasn’t authorized by the Church of Scientology. It was found out, they were thrown out of the church and they were prosecuted. And that was all long before 1995. And what they were doing before Mr. Prince even got into Scientology. And he said he didn’t have anything to do with it.

THE COURT: This was — yeah. What is the relevance of this? It is true that the guardian ad litem — guardian ad litem. I need to get back to thinking — The Guardian’s office was — but I think that there’s been testimony that the Guardian’s Office was simply supplanted by another office. And I’ve forgotten the name of it.

THE WITNESS: Office of —

MR. DANDAR: Office of —

0235

THE WITNESS: — Special Affairs.

MR. DANDAR: — Special Affairs.

THE COURT: Office of Special Affairs.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: It’s the same —

THE COURT: And consequently — there is testimony that it was the same — and it was just — it was just something that was done to — I don’t know if this is true, because — I mean, this is — I think there’s sufficient information to allow this in.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s not true. And Mr. Prince wasn’t in the Office of Special Affairs. He wasn’t, and he doesn’t have any — he is not competent to testify about what went on in the Office of Special Affairs. He certainly can’t testify about what went on in the Guardian’s Office because he wasn’t even — he wasn’t there, and he wasn’t in the church at the time.

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: I mean, this is just — it’s just like we’re just going to throw all of the slime we can — excuse me, Ken — we’re going to throw all the slime we can out here? Well, why don’t we —

THE COURT: Well, you know —

0236

MR. WEINBERG: — address —

THE COURT: — it’s your motion. If you want to withdraw it, then you’re not going to have any slime.

MR. WEINBERG: We’re not —

THE COURT: Withdraw —

MR. WEINBERG: — going to —

THE COURT: — or —

MR. WEINBERG: We’re not going —

THE COURT: — listen and make your objection and I’ll rule on it. And sit down. Now. I’m going to rule this is admissible.

MR. WEINBERG: All right.

THE COURT: You’re going to hear some slime when you throw out the kind of motion that you made.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I understand that, but we’ve been hearing it for a long time.

THE COURT: Well, we’re going to hear it for a lot longer. You’ve had your turn. This is his turn.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What’s the significance of 120; Exhibit 120?

A Exhibit 120 here just kind of shows a pattern of conduct where —

THE COURT: I’m not sure that he needs to

0237

explain this to us.

What — was he in the office in 1976, in the church?

MR. DANDAR: No.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Were you in the church at that time?

THE COURT: Well, then —

A Yes —

THE COURT: — how does he know about —

A — I was —

THE COURT: — that?

THE WITNESS: Excuse me.

A But yes, I was in Scientology in ’76.

THE COURT: Then did this come up when you were with RTC or something like that?

THE WITNESS: Well, your Honor, I think the reason why we have this document in here is because it shows the pattern of conduct that is a continuing pattern of conduct, where if there’s a perceived enemy, such as Gabe Cazares, they wrote up a specific program to remove him from any position. That’s the first thing it says in this document, you know, to remove this person from his job so that he’s not a threat to Scientology. And — and it goes on where, you know, they had

0238

some college — the person pretend to be a college student and write a letter —

THE COURT: Well —

THE WITNESS: — saying —

THE COURT: — this is 2002. The allegation that this occurred is in the year 2002.

Do we have any thought that was — what was going on in 1976 is still going on or was going in 2002 with Mr. Minton? I mean, it’s farfetched.

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: As I said, I let it in, but I don’t need a whole bunch of —

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: — explanation from Mr. Prince.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, let’s — we’ll quickly then look at 121, and then we’re finished with this part.

A Okay.

THE COURT: And by the way, you call it slime. I should not have used that word. That was your word. Very poor choice of my words.

MR. WEINBERG: It was my word.

THE COURT: Yes, it was.

MR. WEINBERG: And I never —

THE COURT: Okay. I don’t even know what it

0239

says. I haven’t read it. So I don’t know if it’s slime or not.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, can you identify Plaintiff’s Exhibit 121?

A Yes. This is a document called Project Normandy. This was a project that was executed when Scientology first arrived in Clearwater, which describes an intelligence activity so that it would be informed of exactly —

MR. WEINBERG: Objection, your Honor. No competence. There’s no way he can authenticate this document.

THE COURT: Yeah. This document doesn’t look like any document that I have seen. How do you — where did you see this document?

THE WITNESS: There’s a — this — this document, the first copy that I saw, was on a long sheet of paper, and it had an exhibit — an exhibit stamp on it, because this is one of the documents that was taken from the 1977 raid in Los Angeles. As — in this current form, it doesn’t have it. This was something that’s on — that was on the Lisa McPherson Trust Web site.

THE COURT: So you’ve never seen this document except on the Web site?

0240

THE WITNESS: No. I — I have seen the document with the exhibit number on it. The exhibit number was put on it by a court in D.C. It was part 4 of the documents — stipulation of evidence that was turned in in D.C.

MR. DANDAR: There was a stipulation of evidence between the government prosecutor and the Church of Scientology.

MR. WEINBERG: How does he know? I mean, your Honor, he — Mr. Dandar’s testifying about some case that went on 20 years ago.

THE COURT: Well, I suppose he knows because presumably he’s done some homework on it. I don’t know.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, your Honor, there is no exhibit —

THE COURT: I’m not allowing this in.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: I’m not allowing it in because there’s nothing that tells me it can be authenticated by this witness.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: And we — I’m not going to let the Lisa McPherson Web site be the basis upon which anything is authenticated.

0241

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit 122.

THE COURT: How much of this are we going to have to go through?

MR. DANDAR: It’s the last —

THE COURT: Your point’s been made, I think, the point you’re trying to make.

MR. DANDAR: Last one.

THE COURT: Well, you just said that about Number 121.

MR. DANDAR: Well, you didn’t let it in, so — I’m just kidding. I’m just kidding.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify 122, Mr. Prince?

A Yes. Number 22 (sic) is a document written and copyrighted by Scientology, written by L. Ron Hubbard. It was intended, when it was written, for persons that worked in the 1st Division of Scientology —

And this basically outlined again how to deal with bad press, how to investigate an attacker, this kind of thing. And public relations; how to deal with the press and public relations.

MR. DANDAR: I move 122 into evidence.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MR. WEINBERG: No.

Only as to relevance. This has to do with internal justice actions —

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: — with regard to Scientologists.

THE COURT: If it can be authenticated —

MR. WEINBERG: I didn’t object to the authentication.

THE COURT: All right. It will be admitted for any relevance that it might have. May not have any. It’s just hard for me to — when documents are presented, to take the time out to read them. It may not have any relevance. And some of these — these things that I’m letting in may be absolutely irrelevant, but they’re long and they’re hard — and it’s hard to read them.

MR. WEINBERG: I understand. I mean, this church, like the Catholic church and a lot of

0243

churches, has internal — has an internal justice system where they deal internally with — with what —

THE COURT: Well —

MR. WEINBERG: — you know, what they call crimes but, you know, in the secular world, are not necessarily crimes. And —

THE COURT: And you can make — and you can certainly make that point in your closing argument.

MR. DANDAR: I would object to any reference to similarities with the Catholic church.

THE COURT: Well, you can object all you want.

MR. DANDAR: Thank you.

THE COURT: It’s been declared a religion. It is a religion. So is the Catholic church a religion.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is there anything in particular on this Exhibit 122 that you want to bring to the court’s attention?

A Well, if you turn to the second page, under the Investigations section, second paragraph, it says, “When we need somebody haunted, we investigate.”

This talks about not only people inside of Scientology; this is referring to individuals outside of

0244

Scientology; people that have never been Scientologists; people that are perceived enemies of Scientology. They don’t have to be a Scientologist. And it — and it — this is — this document itself explains the basis of intelligence, investigation, how it’s used, how you handle bad press. And it — it’s just kind of like a little handbook or a blueprint to the persons whose job it is to have that function within Scientology.

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right. Now —

THE COURT: Number 122 is in evidence.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you ever been the subject of a Scientology intelligence operation, Mr. Prince?

A Yes, I have.

Q What and when?

A I guess it was 1999. I used to do work with families that would call, that had — members within the Church of Scientology. And they were concerned, they wanted another opinion, a different viewpoint presented to their family member. I was called by a fellow named John Porter, who informed me about a fellow in Bakersfield, Las Vegas, Nevada — Bakersfield, Nevada, who had a son in Scientology.

0245

He had spend $200,000 within a month, and the family was concerned that he was squandering his inheritance. I flew to Vegas, met with the person who supposedly was the father, and we had a chat and were going to proceed with it. But as it turned out the person, John Porter, was a person hired — a Scientology-hired private investigator.

The person that posed as the victim’s father was a retired sheriff. And I guess the purpose — and you know, they paid me a thousand dollars to come down and do this. But I guess the purpose was to see if I was going to say or do anything criminal that could be used to show that I’m forcefully deprogramming or capturing people. And of course, that never happened, so — And then this — I’ve only recently learned that this even was so. The whole deal with having a black private investigator come, give me marijuana, come to my house, putting the seeds on the back porch — you know, I’m wondering, “Where is this,” you know, and I’m throwing it all — that whole stuff, as later come out, was an operation. I mean, they — they — My father lives in a retirement community. He’s 74 years old. The Scientologists have come and picketed his house and circled his house with signs.

0246

You know, those are just some of the things that have happened.

Q Okay. All right. Now, let’s go to Mr. Minton.

By the way, before we get to Minton, one question. You said you testified in the Wollersheim 4 case for the Church of Scientology Religious Technology Center. Did you ever testify in any other case for the Church of Scientology?

THE COURT: What year was that, please, Mr. Prince?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I believe it was 1986.

THE COURT: Were you still in the Church of Scientology at the time?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: And you testified as an expert for the church?

THE WITNESS: I testified as to — an expert particularly in the NED for OTs material.

THE COURT: See, he keeps saying that. I don’t know what that —

THE WITNESS: Oh.

THE COURT: Nefrotease (phonetic)?

THE WITNESS: NED for OTs.

MR. DANDAR: F-o-r.

0247

THE WITNESS: For. NED for OTs.

THE COURT: Oh. Sounds like you’re saying nefrotease.

THE WITNESS: Oh.

THE COURT: NED for OTs.

THE WITNESS: NED for OTs.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: I was a person qualified to study those documents, so I did a comparison to what David Mayo had as opposed to what the church had copyrighted, and I gave testimony about that.

THE COURT: So Madam Court Reporter, you understand all this time he’s been saying that, it’s NED for OTs?

THE REPORTER: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Not “nefrotease.” All right.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

MR. DANDAR: And it’s abbreviated as NOTS.

THE COURT: So you were called to say, what, that this NED for OTs material was —

THE WITNESS: Was virtually identical to —

THE COURT: To some L. Ron Hubbard material.

THE WITNESS: No. The NED for OTs is the L. Ron Hubbard material. I was comparing them to similar materials that they were using at what was

0248

known as the Advanced Abilities Center.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, just for the record, my — my understanding is that Mr. Prince was testifying as a fact witness, not as an expert witness.

THE COURT: Well, it does seem as if there’s some complications as to who’s a fact witness and who’s an expert witness, and that’s something we’ll have to wrestle with in this trial too. So we’ll not go there. We’ll say he was either a fact or an expert witness.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And you were — you were always — when you — before you were told — you didn’t choose Mr. Miscavige as being a leader and you were booted out onto the rehabilitation project force, were you considered, before that point in time, an expert on the tech of Scientology?

A Very much so.

Q Okay. I don’t think your microphone’s on.

A Oh. How about now?

Q No. I don’t think it’s turned on.

A Oh.

THE COURT: I can hear him fine. If you lawyers can hear him, okay.

0249

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, is there a — how does Scientology consider a Scientologist coming into a courtroom or anywhere and talking about Scientology?

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

THE COURT: I’m sorry. What was the question?

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q How does the Church of Scientology consider someone who testifies or talks about Scientology?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. He’s now speaking for the entire Church of Scientology now?

THE COURT: I don’t know.

A Well —

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Pursuant to the — pursuant to written policy of the Church of Scientology.

A According —

MR. WEINBERG: We —

A — to —

MR. WEINBERG: We object. He is certainly not talking for the Church of Scientology as to how the church considers some Scientologist coming in and testifying.

THE COURT: If he is testifying regarding his experience when he was in the church and as a

0250

witness, I will allow it. He is testifying, however, based on that and not — he really wouldn’t know how everybody else thinks.

MR. DANDAR: No. It’s based on the former.

Right.

THE COURT: Right.

A It is written policy in the Scientology ethics book, in its management series and basic staff books, that it is a crime to come into a court and testify about Scientology without first going over the information with Scientology or ethics officer, somebody within Scientology.

In other words, it’s a crime to just walk into a courtroom and speak, give testimony about Scientology, without first Scientology being privy to what that’s going to be —

MR. WEINBERG: Well, could we — could he tell us where this policy is?

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: Introduction to Scientology Ethics. It’s right there. I can pull it out and read it for you.

THE WITNESS: Here’s one reference to that. It says, “Testifying hostilely before a state –”

THE COURT: Why don’t you give us a page number?

THE WITNESS: Oh, I’m sorry. This is page number 209.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: It’s listed under Suppressive Act. Suppressive Acts. And it says, “Testifying hostilely before state or public inquiries into Scientology to suppress it –”

THE COURT: Well, that doesn’t really say –what you had just testified to is that it was a crime to testify without first discussing —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — it with an ethics officer.

THE WITNESS: Yeah. You’re right.

And what I’m looking for is called —

THE COURT: I’ll tell you what we’ll do. Let’s just let him look for that either over the break, our morning break, or at lunch. And if he can’t find it, you can make your objection. And if he

0252

can, then he can cite it into the record at that time and we can just go ahead and move on.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: So you keep that with you and you can —

MR. WEINBERG: We have no problem with bringing the whole book into evidence. I mean, the book — many of the policies in there are — we were probably going to — are completely contradictory to what Mr. Dandar’s witnesses have been saying.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, if you want to —

MR. WEINBERG: So —

THE COURT: — put it in — this may be Mr. Dandar’s only copy. So if you want to put it in, maybe you have an extra one and you can do that.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, have you heard the term “acceptable truth”?

A Yes.

Q In Scientology policy, what does that mean?

A An acceptable truth is basically a truth where you don’t have to tell the — tell the whole truth or to tell an accurate truth, but just tell the truth that would be acceptable to the person that you’re speaking to.

0253

Q Okay. Does it have anything to do with not telling the truth?

A Very much so. It’s a way to evade or avoid a question or to avoid — yeah — to — a direct question.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we ask Mr. Prince to identify the policy and show us where in the policy it says what he just said?

THE COURT: I think — I think there’s some stuff in evidence already on acceptable truth.

MR. WEINBERG: There is, but it doesn’t say what he just said, that it’s okay to lie.

THE COURT: Well, then it — I presume, Mr. Prince, whatever it is you’re talking about, is the document that I think I’ve already seen —

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: — acceptable truth?

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: So this is your interpretation of it based on your years in the church?

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: I can’t — I can’t remember what number it is, but there is some number in evidence that deals with acceptable truth.

MR. DANDAR: It’s — it’s called a PR series,

0254

and it talks about PR, public relations, and the second page mentions acceptable truths. And I’ll find that for you during the break.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q All right, Mr. — Mr. Prince. When is the first time you met Bob Minton?

A I met Bob Minton in 1998. I think it was the spring of 1998 or perhaps — no, perhaps it was the summer of 1998.

Q And how was it that you came to meet him?

A I met him through Mrs. Brooks. She introduced me to him.

Q Where at?

A New Hampshire. At his home in New Hampshire.

Q And what caused you to be at his home in New Hampshire?

A I was on vacation —

Well, this is kind of a long story. I was on vacation in Connecticut. Previous to that, I had seen the Internet. And I never knew anything about it, and I just typed in, “Hey, my name is Jesse Prince. If anyone sees Stacy or Vaughn, you know, have them contact me. Here’s my number.” So I was vacationing in Connecticut.

Stacy called me, and we met and talked, and she introduced me to Bob.

0255

Q Why is it that you went on the Internet for the first time and asked for — have Stacy Vaughn — Stacy Young or Vaughn Young call you?

A Well, this was 1998. I had literally no contact with computers after leaving Scientology, in a way that there would be messaging systems amongst organizations and people and things like that. I was — I didn’t know anything about the Internet. I was at a cafe, a cybercafe.

And I did a search and typed in Scientology, and saw all of this stuff come up about Scientology. I saw all of these people openly critical of Scientology.

Now, for me this was completely unheard of. Because if a person was critical of Scientology, they would quickly be silenced. And I saw that — that Stacy and Vaughn were saying something, or someone made reference to them.

So I answered their message as best that I could, and say, “I need these people to contact me.”

Q When was the last time you considered yourself a Scientologist?

A You know, I know I’ve answered the question in different ways. And the fact of the matter is, is it’s kind of hard to tell. I — for me, I think probably by 1996, maybe, I was kind of like pretty much completely done with anything about it.

Q You left the — you left the organization where

0256

you — from RTC, then RPF, and — and you went to work for a Scientology-run public company or a private company run by a Scientologist, correct?

A Correct.

Q And they practiced the Hubbard technology at that company?

A Correct.

Q All right. So were you a Scientologist, then, when you were working for that company?

A You know, part of it, yes; part of it, no.

Q Okay. When did you leave that company?

A I left that company, I believe, in 1997.

Q Okay. When did you get contacted by Earle Cooley, the attorney for the Church of Scientology, after you left, formally, your position in Scientology?

THE COURT: Well, let me help myself out here, ’cause I don’t know — When you left, whatever that is, were you still a member of the Sea Org?

THE WITNESS: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. When did you stop being a member of the Sea Org?

THE WITNESS: October 31st, 1992.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, that is the answer to your

0257

question. That’s when he left.

THE COURT: Well, that’s —

MR. WEINBERG: So — so when he left — the day he left, he stopped being a member of the Sea Org, is what he’s telling you, I think.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: So why is it, from 1992 to 1996, that you still — you were — You’re saying you were like a public member? Is that it?

THE WITNESS: Just a Scientologist. Correct.

THE COURT: Just a Scientologist. Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Judge just brought up something.

When — how — what is the — what do the Sea Org people call Scientologists who are not on staff, but they’re Scientologists?

A Public Scientologists.

Q So they use the word “public.”

A Correct.

Q Okay. After meeting with Mr. Minton in the summer of ’98, what did you do after that, in reference to Mr. Minton?

A I went back home to Minneapolis. At the time, I was living in Minneapolis. And I continued to have dialogue

0258

with Mrs. Brooks, who informed me about a lawsuit that Scientology had filed against a corporation called FACTNet. And we started to —

THE COURT: What was the date, now?

I’m sorry, Mr. Prince.

THE WITNESS: This would have been 1998.

THE COURT: Okay. This was after you went to Mr. Minton’s home in New Hampshire? You stayed in touch? Is what you’re —

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

A She said — she talked to me about that, and she put me in touch with Daniel Leipold. And I started looking over some of the issues, and thought that I could help. So I started talking with Daniel Leipold, Mrs. Brooks. And within a week I received a letter from a Scientology attorney, Elliott Abelson4, letting me know that I was going to be sued if I cooperated with anyone against Scientology, basically.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Based on what?

A Based on — well, for me to leave the situation that I was in in the Sea Org, I had to — it was a kind of a give-or-take thing. I had to make certain concessions.

0259

I was being held there against my will, as well as my wife. We were, you know, deprived of basic human needs and — for months. And we were told that if we signed these documents, we would be allowed to walk out the door. Again, this went on for months. And then finally, in October, whatever they wanted us to sign —

THE COURT: Of what year?

You see, everything —

THE WITNESS: October of 1992.

A Whatever they wanted us to sign, we signed. So he made reference to the fact that I had signed a document saying I wouldn’t assist anyone in bringing any legal action against Scientology, nor would I do it myself.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q FACTNet wasn’t bringing legal action; they were being sued by Scientology.

A Correct.

THE COURT: Who was this lawyer again? Which lawyer?

THE WITNESS: Elliott Abelson.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And so when you started to meet with Mr. Leipold on the FACTNet case, you got this letter from Mr. Abelson. What did you do?

0260

A Well, I took it to the lawyer, and I explained the situation to him then, Daniel Leipold. And when I explained the situation to him, he actually drafted a suit against maybe Golden Era or whatever — I never actually saw the suit myself — and filed it in Riverside County. And then there was a whole press thing. I was interviewed by the newspaper and on and on.

Q Okay. Anything come out of that lawsuit?

A No.

Q All right. So did you go to work for FACTNet?

A Yes, I did.

Q All right. And how long did you stay there?

A Maybe about a year, a year and a half.

Q Okay. ’98 to ’99?

A ’98 to ’99. Yeah. About a year.

Q Okay. And at some point in time you came to Florida to look at the Lisa McPherson PC folders?

A Correct.

Q All right. And you looked over those folders with Stacy Brooks?

A Yes, I did.

Q And then after we received a copy of the PC folders under court order, you went and took your time and examined all —

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could there be

0261

direct questions and not —

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DANDAR: I’m just trying to speed it up.

MR. WEINBERG: Well, I would prefer a direct question.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, you know what, some of this — you’re right. But some of this is preliminary. We know he looked at the folders.

MR. WEINBERG: It’s the — it’s the testimony.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINBERG: I know he looked at them, and I didn’t object to that part of it.

THE COURT: Okay.

(A discussion was held off the record.)

THE COURT: We’ll take a break right now.

We’ll be in recess for 15 minutes or 20 minutes. 15, we’ll try for.

(A recess was taken at 10:48 a.m.)

(The proceedings resumed at 11:18 a.m.)

MR. BATTAGLIA: Your Honor, may I approach the bench?

THE COURT: You may.

MR. BATTAGLIA: I’d like to announce to the court I’m going to be making an appearance in this matter for Robert Minton as lead counsel, so I will

0262

be submitting a formal notice. I just want the court to be aware of that.

THE COURT: Now, will that be for all purposes?

MR. BATTAGLIA: Well, for all purposes. But Mr. Howie still will be involved in portions of the case.

We will send in a formal notice. We were retained this past Thursday.

THE COURT: All right. Very good. I think, Mr. Battaglia, there is a matter pending that I frankly would like to hear. Because it is a motion, I believe, to dismiss the counterclaim. And if it’s not dismissed, then obviously he needs to answer it because it could have some bearing on the counterclaim.

MR. BATTAGLIA: I have to check that. I understand from talking to Mr. Howie that he may have responded to that counterclaim and affirmative defenses. I’d have to check that out.

THE COURT: If he did, I haven’t seen it.

MR. DANDAR: I’m Ken Dandar, by the way. Judge, Mr. Howie filed a motion to dismiss the pending counterclaim. They never filed the new counterclaim naming Mr. Minton, so he prematurely filed a motion to dismiss. We never received a new

0263

counterclaim which is supposed to name Mr. Minton as a defendant. We’re still waiting for that.

THE COURT: Okay. I think that perhaps the reason why they didn’t file a new one is because I allowed him to be added orally, to be — to be amended, I guess. So perhaps they — I mean, Mr. Howie obviously thought it had been filed, for all intents and purposes, with the oral amendments, because he did file a motion to dismiss or something.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Your Honor, I did look. That was a problem that puzzled me a bit, because there was no order in the file, and then there was a corrective counterclaim that was filed. And I didn’t understand the import of that, because the party was just added by a corrective counterclaim without an order of the court. I assumed you had granted that orally.

THE COURT: I had. And I had granted it orally, and maybe I just forgot to sign an order. Can you all go back and maybe look into that? Because it was your motion, I believe, to add him.

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: And I granted it. And I know Mr. Howie was here, and I said, “It’s granted and he

0264

is now a party.”

MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes. And he was allowed to sit in as a party from then on, as opposed to being excluded under the rules.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Is there presently a motion to dismiss pending?

THE COURT: Yes. That Mr. Howie has filed.

MR. BATTAGLIA: Filed on behalf of Minton?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BATTAGLIA: We’ll look into that.

THE COURT: It’s more than a motion to dismiss.

MR. BATTAGLIA: It is. It’s a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BATTAGLIA: I saw that. And we’ll get back to the court.

You got to understand we’re coming in very late. There’s thousands and thousands of exhibits. And we’re just trying to catch up here.

THE COURT: Yes. There are thousands and thousands of exhibits.

MR. BATTAGLIA: It’s going to take a bit —

THE COURT: I’m sure it is.

(The reporter had technical problems and there was a pause in the proceedings.)

0265

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, before the break, Mr. Prince had said he was going to find the section —

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: In the ethics book that said you had to get the permission of an ethics officer to testify about Scientology. Could he —

THE COURT: Did you find that?

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I misspoke as to where the actual quote was. It’s not in the ethics book, but it is in another volume which unfortunately we do not have here, but I will get it and I will submit it to the court.

THE COURT: All right. And the same — if you can’t, why, we’ll strike that.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, let me show you Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number 123. Can you identify 123?

A Yes. This is a series that’s put out for the technical part of Scientology which has to do with the PC Folder and the contents of the PC folder.

Q And is this something you were trained on as a technical person in Scientology?

A Yes.

0266

Q Okay.

THE COURT: I hate to interrupt you, and I feel really bad about it.

This was laying here. I don’t know whether this is something that was previously admitted. It doesn’t have a number on it.

MR. DANDAR: This was. This was 114, which was admitted.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. DANDAR: I’d like to move Exhibit 123 in evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: Is it one exhibit or two exhibits? You handed me —

MR. DANDAR: Did I hand you two?

MR. WEINBERG: You handed me The PC folder and Its Contents, and Mixing Rundowns and Repairs. One was an exhibit dated November 13th, 1997, which was after Mr. Hubbard died. But I don’t have an objection to it, if you want —

THE COURT: It does look like you have two different things here.

MR. DANDAR: I have two. And I meant to do that. It involves the —

THE COURT: Well, then, how about making them A and B?

0267

MR. DANDAR: All right.

THE COURT: 123-A will be The PC folder and Its Contents; 123-B, if you’re saying it’s related, will be Mixing Rundowns and Repairs —

MR. DANDAR: Well —

THE COURT: — 123-B?

MR. DANDAR: Let’s make sure I’m right about that.

MR. WEINBERG: When I say I’m not going to object, I do have an objection to all of this and Mr. Prince testifying, but I don’t object to the authenticity of these.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, is the separate document, that apparently is paper clipped to The PC Folder and Its Contents, entitled Mixing Rundowns and Repairs — is that related to The PC folder and Its Contents or is that something different?

A That’s something different.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. Then I will withdraw that.

THE COURT: All right. So it’s just 123, The PC Folder and Its Content.

MR. DANDAR: Right.

THE COURT: Okay.

0268

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, is the Church of Scientology allowed to deviate from this bulletin of November 13th, 1987 on what is supposed to be in a person’s PC folder?

A Not at all. The whole purpose of this issue is to clearly define what is expected to be in a preclear folder. It gives the significance of what each item is, in detail, and auditors — any person that audits in Scientology is trained on this as a basic for auditing.

Q Now, Mr. Weinberg brought up a good point. Mr. Hubbard died in 1986. How can this policy letter dated November of 1987 bear his stamp of approval with his name on it?

A Well, turning to the last page, it says, “This is a compilation assisted by the LRH Technical Research Compilations.” There are other — there’s another issue type that isn’t a formal issue type within Scientology, which is called advices. And often, from advices, policy letters can be compiled and issued.

Q And that’s what this is? This is a compilation?

A Correct.

MR. DANDAR: Like to move Exhibit 123 into evidence.

THE COURT: It’ll be received.

0269

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Also Mr. Prince, I’m going to show you Exhibit 124. It’s marked for identification.

MR. DANDAR: Hand one to the court and counsel.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Can you identify 124?

A Yes. This is a Scientology policy directive. And this was issued from the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and authorized by the watchdog committee, adopted as church policy. This concerns confidentiality aspects of preclear folders and what’s expected to be in them.

MR. DANDAR: Okay. I’d like to move 124 into evidence.

MR. WEINBERG: No objection.

THE COURT: All right. It’ll be received.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, when you started to review Lisa McPherson’s 1995 PC folders, did you find them to be intact?

A No, I did not.

Q Did you create an affidavit which — where you disclosed things that were missing?

A Yes, I did.

THE COURT: Are we now into that part of the testimony that deals with the complaint itself?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

0270

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince — and we’ve already had marked, and I believe it’s in evidence, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 108, which is your affidavit dated April 4, 2000, concerning the PC folders, and with a list of things that are missing. Do you
recall creating that affidavit?

A Yes, I do.

Q Do you need to see it to refresh your memory?

A Yes, I do.

Q Did anyone help you in creating that affidavit?

THE COURT: What was the number of Plaintiff’s Exhibit again? 108?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

Let’s make sure it’s in evidence. I’m pretty sure it is.

THE COURT: As a matter of fact, if he’s going to be referring to it, Madam Clerk, if you could get — let me use the official copy. And I’m sure you filed mine in its appropriate book.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, while she’s looking, I object to all this as to the relevance, as to what was or what was not in the PC folder.

What the hearing is about is whether or not Mr. Dandar made a sham pleading and Mr. Prince

0271

executed in essence a sham affidavit, accusing David Miscavige of murder, and whether or not there’s been various misconduct from the plaintiff’s side regarding various testimony in the case.

What does what was in the PC folder or not have to do with that?

MR. DANDAR: This falls under the second category in Mr. Weinberg’s comments: Various misconduct. They have accused me of lying about the fact that Lisa McPherson wanted to leave Scientology. Somehow I just made that all up and I got people to lie about it.

And that’s part of their terminating sanction motion and disqualification motion.

MR. WEINBERG: So you —

But what’s that got to do with what’s missing?

You going to ask him what was in the PC folders? Is that what you’re saying?

THE COURT: Well, there’s also an allegation as to his complaint and whether or not there’s any basis for it. And part of what I have read, maybe in Mr. Prince’s affidavit, that some of the missing data is data from the workers, which the testimony would be, from some witness — Mr. Prince, perhaps — should have been in the PC folders,

0272

and —

MR. WEINBERG: I mean, I — they’ve made that allegation, although the workers all testified what they did, what they saw and all that.

But that has nothing to do with whether or not David Miscavige ordered Lisa McPherson to be killed. Just —

THE COURT: Well, whether it was an intentional death, I think, is at issue here, and I think it does. So your objection’s overruled.

MR. DANDAR: Was 109 not in evidence?

THE COURT: And besides that — I don’t know what his testimony’s going to be, but if this is, in some fashion, what he relied upon for his opinion, then I think it’s got to be relevant for his opinion.

MR. WEINBERG: I thought it was inquiring. I mean, it’s —

THE COURT: I think that probably for all those different things it has some relevance, so I’m going to let it in.

MR. DANDAR: And Judge, 108’s previously been admitted into evidence.

THE COURT: Right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Now, Mr. Prince, when you reviewed the files of

0273

Lisa McPherson, did you find routing forms?

A I did not.

Q And recently we showed you some routing forms that, within the last few weeks, that the Church of Scientology states they have reproduced to us. And did you review those?

A Yes, I did.

Q Do those routing forms have anything to do with Lisa McPherson spending six to eight weeks at the Ft. Harrison Hotel in the summer of 1995?

A No, they do not.

Q Do those routing forms have anything to do with Lisa McPherson spending 17 days at the Ft. Harrison Hotel from November 18th of ’95 to December 5th of ’95?

A No, they do not.

Q Can a person, a public member like Lisa McPherson, stay at the Ft. Harrison Hotel without a routing form?

A No, she could not.

Q What would the routing form tell us?

MR. WEINBERG: Objection. Competence. I mean, is Mr. Prince saying that he has knowledge as to what a person that checks into the Ft. Harrison Hotel has to fill out in order to be a guest there?

You have to have a routing form as opposed to registering as a guest? What basis? He never

0274

worked at the Ft. Harrison Hotel.

THE COURT: He is telling us, based on his experience in Scientology, as to what a routing form is used for and what a routing form should have on it.

MR. WEINBERG: But Mr. Dandar asked him whether you needed a routing form to be a guest at the Ft. Harrison Hotel.

MR. DANDAR: Well, let me rephrase the question.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Do you need a routing form, Mr. Prince, to be in a program such as the introspection rundown, whether it’s the Ft. Harrison Hotel or any other property of the Church of Scientology?

A Yes, you do.

Q And why is that?

A Because the Ft. Harrison —

And I’ll just say this: It’s incorrect that I never worked at the Ft. Harrison Hotel. I worked at the Ft. Harrison from 1979 to 1982.

The Ft. Harrison has many divisions, many departments, many sections that people come either for training or for auditing. They have different places where people would get auditing.

0275

And the whole purpose of a routing form is when a person comes in for service, they sign in, they get their hotel room, they’re routed to pay for their hotel room, they get what their room is, any questions are answered. When
they’re ready for services, they go down, they’re put on another routing form.

And like, if they’re going to get a service — a training course, a TRs course, it would be on the routing form, and they would go see the registrar; they would go and see the director of processing; maybe they would get an interview.

In other words, the routing form gives you the areas and the people that you need to see and the places you need to go to in order to accomplish what you have come for.

Q And is there any policy that permits a deviation from the requirement to have a routing form?

A No, there is not.

Q As an expert on Scientology tech, what does it mean to you that there is no routing form for Lisa McPherson?

A Well, in and of itself, that is an oddity. But when you take into consideration the fact — many other items that are missing from her preclear folder, I can only opine that this was information that would have not been good to discover for Scientology’s behalf.

0276

MR. WEINBERG: Objection.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you —

MR. WEINBERG: Competence, your Honor.

THE COURT: I’m going to allow it. I’m going to allow it for this hearing.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Have you been involved in the destruction — intentional destruction of PC folders of members, in addition to Mr. Wollersheim’s, that you previously testified about at this hearing —

A Well —

Q — which was ordered to be pulped by Mr. Miscavige?

A Well, at the time that the Wollersheim incident happened, because there were threats from other people such as John Nelson and — well, I don’t know. You know, there was a list of people at the time. The only one that I specifically recall right now is John Nelson. But their folders were destroyed as well.

Q What about Mr. Armstrong?

A Yes. His as well.

Q What about Mr. Franks?

A I believe his was as well.

MR. WEINBERG: Excuse me.

0277

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. WEINBERG: Believe? Or does he know?

THE COURT: Do you know that or —

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, as I sit here today, I can’t say for certain —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — but I knew there were certainly more than Mr. Wollersheim’s folders, because there were a list of people. And I can’t sit here and recall today every name —

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: — that was on that list.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q What is the significance to you — let’s start with the missing — what’s missing from her folder. In the introspection rundown that Mr. Kartuzinski states she was under November 18th through December 5th of ’95, is there supposed to be documentation in a PC folder that Lisa McPherson was indeed under the introspection rundown?

THE COURT: What dates, now? Are we talking about the 17-day dates?

MR. DANDAR: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

0278

A Yes. There would have been, in the very front of the folder, what’s called a program. It would have been a repair program. It would have been something that’s on a pink piece of paper as opposed to a blue piece of paper.
The color in the paper — the color within the preclear folder also has significance.

But in Lisa’s case, there would have been, if she was on — on the introspection rundown, it would have given a short statement of who she was, what she’s accomplished, what her last auditing activities were, and what the current problem was, what the symptoms were that she was experiencing that would cause her to be on introspection rundown.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, I have an objection to this whole line. I — I take it where he’s going is to suggest that she wasn’t on the introspection rundown, when he alleged in the complaint that she was on the introspection rundown. It’s not an issue in this case. We answered the complaint. It’s not an issue.

THE COURT: That’s true.

MR. DANDAR: I subsequently discovered that this program was missing, that Mr. Kartuzinski, under oath, said was in her PC folder. Now I’m not sure what she was going through and where she was.

0279

These things — these things are missing, and we would have to conform the pleadings to the evidence as we discover new things that are — go on.

THE COURT: So what are you saying? Are you saying that you — that she was not under the introspection rundown?

MR. DANDAR: Well —

THE COURT: Or you don’t know?

MR. DANDAR: I’m saying it’s not a confirmed fact that she was on the introspection rundown, because of what’s missing.

THE COURT: Okay. I’m going to let this witness testify at this hearing, because we need to get to where it was that he comes up with his conclusions —

MR. WEINBERG: I understand.

THE COURT: — and I assume all this has something to do with it, so —

MR. WEINBERG: I’m not sure I have the same assumption, but I understand where you’re —

THE COURT: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q In your experience in Scientology, were things that were beneficial — papers and documents that were

0280

beneficial to Scientology removed from a member’s PC folder?

A No. You know — and I’ve written a declaration about this before — well, this declaration may be in and of itself — you know, with the Wollersheim, there was the process of, “Okay, well, we’ll turn over something; we’ll go
through and we’ll — we’ll get rid of any kind of incriminating things that would incriminate Scientology.”

Then when the production of all the folders were called for, it — that became too massive of a task and it was decided to destroy them.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, could I say one more thing, so I don’t lose this train of thought?

I did object, and I understand your ruling, but he already had alleged that — that the introspection rundown happened, and his response to your question and my statement was, “I just recently discovered it.”

Well, Mr. Prince reviewed the PC folders, his expert, in December of 1998, and whatever wasn’t there in December of 1998 certainly isn’t there now. So what’s he talking about?

THE COURT: I don’t know, but I think that this testimony is going to tell us why Mr. Prince concluded what he concluded, which is what Mr. Dandar relied on for his complaint. It is relevant for this hearing.

0281

Please don’t object again.

MR. WEINBERG: I’m sorry.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, you — when did you actually sit down and review the 1995 PC folders of Lisa McPherson?

A It was in the fall of 1999.

Q What’s the date of that affidavit?

A The date of this affidavit is April — the 4th of April, 2000.

Q Okay. And concerning this one issue, the issue of whether or not Lisa McPherson was satisfied with her Scientology experience, do the PC folders reveal what she had to say about her Scientology experience in 1995?

A Yes, it does. And I think I’ve covered that with as much detail as possible: That she wanted to leave. She actually made plans to leave. And she felt like she was starting to become damaged.

Q And that’s inside the PC folders?

A Correct.

Q Now, within your experience of Scientology, have you used — have you — are you familiar with the term “end cycle”?

A Yes, I am.

Q And what is your understanding or familiarity with that term?

0282

THE COURT: Can I —

I’m sorry. I’m as bad at interrupting chain of thought as anybody.

This — this particular affidavit is the affidavit that was dealing with her wishing to leave that was part of the motion for summary judgment that was ruled on by Judge Quesada, is that right?

MR. DANDAR: Well, that was part of it, but there’s a lot more than just that in there. It talks about things that are missing from her PC folder.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Now we’re past the missing items from the PC folder and to —

MR. DANDAR: Trying to get that paragraph 34.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Are people who want to leave the Church of Scientology — how are they looked at, within your experience and per policy by the Church of Scientology?

A Well, people who want to leave Scientology and publicly state such are considered criminals, because that’s a high crime in Scientology.

MR. DANDAR: Right. Search and Discovery is in evidence. That came out of here.

THE WITNESS: Says right here, “It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology.” And this comes from HCO policy letter of 23 December, 1965, RB, Suppressive X, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists.

0284

THE COURT: What page are you reading from, sir, in that book?

THE WITNESS: Where I read that quote from, I am reading from — I just read from 159.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DANDAR: Judge, I’ll have that entire policy marked.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, my objection to this is it talks about — Mr. Prince read it –publicly — a person publicly announces he’s going to depart Scientology. Well, that’s not what we have in this case. What’s that have to do with this case?

THE COURT: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear him say “publicly.”

MR. WEINBERG: That’s what he read. That was —

THE WITNESS: It says, “It is a high crime to publicly depart Scientology.”

I think Lisa had done that, because she had told her mother and she had told a friend that she was leaving Scientology. And she made it known, in the notes that I made here, that she intended to leave. She wasn’t happy with —

MR. WEINBERG: I object to that statement

0285

because the evidence —

THE COURT: Well, look, you don’t need to object to that, because I know enough about —

MR. WEINBERG: Okay.

THE COURT: — the evidence with the mother and the evidence with the friend and the fact that what would be in her PC folder would hardly be public, where I can determine the validity of that statement.

MR. WEINBERG: Okay. All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, within your experience with Scientology, what does that — what does it mean to publicly leave Scientology?

A You could publicly leave Scientology in several ways. You could submit a letter of resignation and make that letter available to other parties beyond a recant, which would — in a normal organization, would be the ethics officer.

I guess in these days and times you could go on the Internet or you could just simply announce to your friends and fellow Scientologists that you have the intention of leaving.

THE COURT: How about if I just don’t go back? I mean, if I’m a member of a church — which I was at one time when I was a child — and I just don’t

0286

go back? I mean, is that — is that leaving?

THE WITNESS: Yes. That is considered a form of leaving. And — and in that instance, if you just simply left, you would be contacted and asked to come into the organization so that they could find out what happened. If you —

THE COURT: And what if you just don’t go in?

In other words, I’m a public member, which is what Lisa McPherson was — this is a hypothetical — and I — even — I don’t want to go back and I don’t want to get any more auditing and I don’t want to go to any more services and I just don’t go?

THE WITNESS: Well —

THE COURT: They say, “Come in,” and I just decline and I don’t go.

THE WITNESS: Then they’ll show up on your door.

THE COURT: Oh.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay.

A There’s a process of getting out of Scientology. There is a way to do it. And normally, it involves signing a release agreeing that you will never — that you’ll be ineligible for Scientology services in the future —

Q To —

0287

A — and you would also have to sign a statement saying that you release any claims of any possible damage or upset that you had — in other words, a general release for the different Scientology corporations that you’ve been involved in.

MR. WEINBERG: Could we just make it clear that that’s only — that he’s talking about staff members and not public members having to sign a release?

THE WITNESS: I — it’s staff and public. I — that’s the second time I’ve said that.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Okay. Mr. Prince, you said that she talked to her friend from high school about wanting to leave. Where did you get that information from?

A From her testimony.

Q The friend’s testimony?

A Yes.

Q Kelly Davis?

A Yes.

Q And when you said that Lisa called her mother and said she wanted to leave. Where did you get that from?

A I think — I read — I read it — I read it somewhere in the evidence. I can’t —

Q Okay.

A — put my finger on exactly where —

0288

Q Do you recall —

A — I saw it.

Q — Lisa’s mother, Fannie, having a Hospice worker by the name Sandra Anderson?

A That’s right.

Q Is that what you’re referring to?

A Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: Your Honor, is he, like, prompting him now?

THE COURT: I would say so.

Stop leading him.

MR. DANDAR: It’s either — wanted to make sure it wasn’t from me. Because that’s the accusation.

THE COURT: Move on, Counselor.

MR. DANDAR: All right.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Mr. Prince, end cycle. Can you tell us what — where and when you’ve heard that or seen that term?

A End cycle has a history in Scientology. And it has varied meanings.

One meaning of end cycle is to start, change and stop something. In other words, you start it — you start an activity, you carry through to its intended result or purpose, and then you end it. So ending the cycle, you know, like this hearing is going to have an end of cycle

0289

when the judge decides who’s right and who’s wrong or discovers the issues. That’s one form of end cycle. Another form of end cycle is to die. This — this — this idea of ending cycle to die came into prominence in my mind and in my experience in Scientology after Mr. Hubbard passed in 1986 at a discussion with senior CS Ray Mithoff. Because I was curious. He sat on a deathbed with L. Ron Hubbard.

And I asked him, you know, “When he died –” I asked him, you know, because this was — L. Ron Hubbard was a person that we all looked up to. And I — and I was curious. You know, “Well, how did this man die? What were the exact circumstances? What happened there?”

And he said that he positively started shutting down certain parts of his body; his, you know, certain part of his systems.

And I asked, “Well, how does this happen? I mean, what are you — what are you doing?” And he told me the Scientology process is that you use — you know, you talk about what the — your attention may be stuck on; at what problems do you have with dying? I mean, there’s a whole procedure that you go through to prepare for death so that you have no attention or problems with death and can die.

When Mr. Hubbard passed, at that point I started seeing, you know, more of the concept of ending cycle, as

0290

far as to die.

THE COURT: Is this a little bit like a — what we might think of Hospice and how they prepare someone —

THE WITNESS: Sure.

THE COURT: — with a terminal disease in your family and —

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Well, Mr. Hubbard didn’t have a terminal disease, though, did he?

A To my knowledge, no.

Q But he still went through that process of end cycle?

A Yes.

Q So where else did you see that term used in reference to dying?

A Terminally ill people. I’ve also read this up in affidavits.

A friend of mine, Ted Cormack (phonetic), had Hodgkin’s disease. It was apparently fatal. I saw in his folder from Mr. Mithoff the necessary steps that people do in order to, you know, give up the ghost, basically; you know, to die.

0291

THE COURT: Die in peace —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — like in Hospice.

THE WITNESS: Exactly.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q Do they do that by themselves?

A No. It’s done with an auditor.

Q And did you —

THE COURT: With what, sir?

THE WITNESS: An auditor.

BY MR. DANDAR:

Q And is there ever anything in writing about having an auditor go in and assist someone to die?

A Absolutely. There would be, as in Lisa’s case, a program. That program would —

MR. DANDAR: Can I — can I please have these people stop laughing?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINBERG: We apologize.

And I object. “As in Lisa’s case, a program.” I mean, he has just said 10 minutes ago that there was no program, and therefore —

THE COURT: He is trying to tell us what he believes to be missing —

MR. WEINBERG: Well —

0292

THE COURT: — which is what he’s talking about: Missing things in the PC folder, which is what gave his opinion that he gave to Mr. Dandar, who filed the complaint.

MR. WEINBERG: But the question was, though, was generally about his understanding of end cycle, end of cycle.

THE COURT: Your objection is overruled.

And I’m going to instruct you all back there to stop laughing.

MR. WEINBERG: You’re right.

THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Dandar.

MR. DANDAR: Okay.

THE COURT: So it’s your belief that an auditor would have been with Lisa McPherson when she died? Is that what you’re suggesting, from this missing — missing documents, or what?

THE WITNESS: Well — well, you know, your Honor, for me that’s kind of mixing apples and oranges. Because the question he asked me was about a specific incident that happened with a fellow named Ted Cormack —

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: — so.

THE COURT: Did you see his PC folder?

0293

THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: And what is in there?

THE WITNESS: The process is similar to what you said, in Hospice, when a person dies in peace; you know — you know, as far as they’re concerned everything’s taken care of and they can go.

THE COURT: Okay. And so that you saw that in his PC folder?

THE WITNESS: Yeah. You know —

THE COURT: And said an auditor was there?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay. So how do you jump from there to something that’s missing in Lisa McPherson’s folder and assume that there was an auditor with her with some end cycle directive?

THE WITNESS: Well, with — and we’ll get to that too.

But in relationship to Lisa McPherson, it is — it is my belief that she was most assuredly on a program; that that program most assuredly was in her file folder at some point, along with other reports that are detailed — that are missing; and those — you know, for whatever reason, those things weren’t turned over or made available.

THE COURT: Let’s assume that — for the sake

0294

of argument, that what she was on was the introspection rundown, and that something went wrong, and she wasn’t taken to the hospital as quickly as she should have been, and she died. And let’s assume further that somehow or another somebody removed part of that from her folder. That would have nothing to do with an end cycle, an auditor being there or anything of the sort. So I guess my main question is, what caused you to leap to the conclusion that the fact that the documents were missing?

And there’s no question of that. So two and a half days, I guess of documents are missing —

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: — toward the end of this — I’ll call it an introspection rundown.

You know, how do you know that that just didn’t have something to do with the fact that either somebody, A, forgot to put them in a folder or, B, if they were destroyed it was because somebody was negligent and they didn’t want somebody to see that? How do you get to the fact that somebody ordered her death and said, “End cycle,” or whatever it is that’s in the complaint?

THE WITNESS: Okay. This is exactly how I came

0295

to the conclusion —

THE COURT: Do you mind, Mr. Dandar?

MR. DANDAR: No, no.

THE COURT: That’s what we need to get to.

MR. DANDAR: Let’s get — let’s get to it.

THE WITNESS: Let’s get to it.

THE COURT: Get to it.

How did you conclude — how did you — I presume that you read the PC folders.

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: You answered Mr. Dandar’s questions. He asked you as his consultant, “Can you tell me what you think –”

THE WITNESS: “What happened?”

THE COURT: This is what you told him, and he put it in the complaint.

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. So now you got to tell me how you came to the conclusion you came to and what it is you told Mr. Dandar —

THE WITNESS: I’ll —

THE COURT: — okay?

THE WITNESS: — tell you exactly —

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: — how I did that, your Honor.

0296

THE COURT: All right.

THE WITNESS: From reading Lisa McPherson’s preclear folders, reading her ethics folders, seeing, kind of like, what’s missing — and it didn’t make sense for these things to be out of the preclear folder unless they were damaging to the church.

And again, I’ve been in a position where, you know, it was considered documents within a preclear folder were damaging to Scientology so they’re removed for Scientology’s sake.

But even a step back from that, your Honor, you get a person —

And it clearly states on the introspection rundown that once you are assigned to the introspection rundown, you are not allowed to leave introspection rundown until the case supervisor tells you you can leave. You are literally incarcerated until you are told you can leave.

THE COURT: Well, you know, that may be your interpretation. If somebody is — is what I would consider schizophrenic or very, very mentally disturbed, you really wouldn’t want them leaving because they might be — you know —

You handled an introspection rundown, right?

0297

THE WITNESS: Sure. Yes. I’ve done them.

THE COURT: And I’ve read what — what you and Ms. Brooks said about this woman. So apparently there was a time when she was in a situation where you wouldn’t have wanted her just stumbling around the street, right?

THE WITNESS: Right. Correct.

But you know, be that as it may, again, the person is not allowed to leave until they have permission to leave.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: So whether or not this person experienced some lucid moment or had a lucid hour and said, “Hey, look, I just want to do something else,” they still could not leave, okay? Now, what happens in that situation, from introspection rundowns that I’ve done — that I have done, participated in myself, and myself seeing and being incarcerated — what happens?

When you’re in a situation you don’t want to be, you say — you tell them, “Look, I don’t want to be here.” “Well, too bad. You have to be here.” “No. It’s not too bad. Now, really, guys, it’s over. I just want to go.” “No. You’re not going.”

Well, what happens? It escalates. The person

0298

says, “Hey, look, if you don’t let me out of here, I’m going to call the police. If you don’t call — let me out of here, I’m going to find a way to contact law enforcement. I’m going to find a way to get out of here. You better let me out of here.” And it escalates like that. And this has happened. And the reason why I say what happened to Lisa happened to Lisa — the reason why I gave that opinion is, number one, what is missing and what would have been there, which happens as a natural consequence, is, when you’re held against your will and people don’t want to let you go, then you complain. You threaten. She threatened. Oh, no.

Now it becomes a huge problem, if Lisa is being held against her will and she wants to leave, and she’s already made it clear, through what I’ve written here, that Scientology procedures are — is not making her spiritually more able; it’s not furthering her ideas of — of, kind of, what she had in mind.

So it is my opinion that Lisa started threatening Scientology at some point. She started threatening to go to the police. She may have threatened that, “I’m going to sue you if you don’t let me go. I’m going to do whatever.” You know,

0299

push the buttons in — in the hope to get out. They didn’t let her out.

I think that Lisa became very sick. I think Lisa did change her mind about what her plans were once she left. And when — and in that horrible situation, for Scientology, it would have been a nightmare for that girl to leave that hospital — to leave Scientology and go to the hospital.

Now, this is, you know, is my opinion and I state it as such.

For them — for her to say, “Look, they locked me in there.” You know, “This happened, that happened.” And —

THE COURT: Well —

THE WITNESS: — boom —

THE COURT: — there was nothing that indicates she wanted to go to the hospital. She left — I mean, she left the hospital because she wanted to leave the hospital, so —

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE COURT: — if she’d left, presumably she was going to go home.

THE WITNESS: Right.

Well, you know — of course, we know that that didn’t happen.

0300

THE COURT: Well, I know. But you’re saying what a horrible nightmare it would have been. The truth of the matter is, if she had been well and had gone home to her mother and sister and what have you, there would have been no nightmare at all —

THE WITNESS: That’s —

THE COURT: — for Scientology.

THE WITNESS: — right. That’s right. It would have been fine.

But now we’re in a different situation, you see, because now she’s being held against her will. You know, you see — you see in the reports how she becomes violent.

You know, again, in my experience, as a natural progression, when you are being held and you want to be in one place and somebody’s making you stay in one place, it starts to escalate.

THE COURT: Let me ask you a question, Mr. Prince: Have you ever been in a mental hospital?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: So you know how, in a mental hospital, when somebody is really — I’m going to use the term “crazy,” okay? Very sick. Somebody who’s psychologically extremely disturbed.

0301

THE WITNESS: Right.

THE COURT: Well, they want to leave too, right? That’s why they have them behind locked doors and bars and all that sort of stuff, is because they want to leave.

THE WITNESS: Mm-hmm.

THE COURT: And they’re not fit to leave mentally. They would be a danger to themselves, perhaps others, to let them out in the street. So when somebody’s in a mental hospital, very sick, and they say they want to go, well, they’re not allowed to leave.

THE WITNESS: Well, you know — you know — now, let’s take a look at this.

You’re talking about a person that’s sick, right?

THE COURT: Right.

THE WITNESS: That means a medical diagnosis, right?

There is no medical diagnosis here. There is no authority that says this person was crazy. This is just the opinion, based on the beliefs of Scientology, that they gave her this label of being crazy, okay? That’s way different than being in a mental institution where you’ve been diagnosed, or

0302

you’ve committed some crime, or you’ve harmed somebody, or something has caused to you go to an institution —

THE COURT: Well —

THE WITNESS: — which —

THE COURT: — schizophrenic.

THE WITNESS: — is certainly not the case with Lisa.

THE COURT: I mean, you can be in a mental hospital and not have harmed anybody and not be a danger — I mean, you’re talking about a Baker Act, where you’re — you’re kept against your will involuntarily.

But I mean, there are sick people in a hospital, just because they’re sick and they’re crazy and they — and they just aren’t fit to be on the street, right?

THE WITNESS: Right. Right. In a hospital.

There’s a difference between being in a hospital and being locked in a room with people who don’t understand really what’s going on and are just following orders.

THE COURT: Well, they may not.

But the truth of the matter is, that’s the belief of the Church of Scientology. You were a part of it and you participated in it, right?

0303

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: You participated in an introspection rundown with somebody who was in the same boat that Lisa McPherson was in; at least in — at times, right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Nobody ordered that this lady would end cycle that you were watching, right?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

THE COURT: Well, then, how — you see, I’m just — I’m trying to help you, here, to see if there’s any basis for this.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: How is it that you’ve come to this conclusion, other than just it’s — it’s one of many, many thoughts that you might have as to what might have happened?

THE WITNESS: Because based on Scientology’s own policy, the first thing you do when a person starts demonstrating these symptoms is take them to a medical doctor to ensure that the reason why these symptoms are occurring aren’t based upon some medical reason, okay?

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Now, this is in their own

0304

documents.

Now, why would they not do that? Why would they not do that? If their documents say if a person is demonstrably mentally ill, the first thing you do is, even in introspection rundown, is take them to the hospital.

Well, why wouldn’t you do that?

THE COURT: Because maybe —

THE WITNESS: The reason why you wouldn’t do it is because the person in — they were also telling you, “I’m going to sue you. I’m going to tell about this. I’m threatening you. You got to let me out of here.”

No, you’re not going to the hospital. Because once they go to the hospital, because they are lost.